[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H323-H372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
general leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 materials on H.R. 5.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allen). Pursuant to House Resolution 33
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. 5.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1350
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. 5) to reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and
formulate new regulations and guidance documents, to clarify the nature
of judicial review of agency interpretations, to ensure complete
analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Bost in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is a new day in America. For 8 years, the Obama
administration has brought us one thing in response to the Nation's
need for recovery from hard times--failure.
Bold, innovative measures to unleash American freedom, opportunity,
and resourcefulness could have brought prosperity's return after the
Great Recession, just as under Ronald Reagan following his era's
recession.
But the Obama administration responded differently, with measure
after overreaching measure, through regulation, taxes, and spending. It
was consumed by the folly of trying to force transformation from the
American people through command and control from Washington. Everywhere
it went, it sought to choose the winners and losers.
When Washington tries to choose the winners and losers, we all lose.
And lose we have. We have a national debt of $20 trillion thanks to the
outgoing administration's blowout spending. We have an economy that for
8 years has failed to produce enough good, new, full-time jobs to
sustain growth and restore dignity to the unemployed. We
[[Page H324]]
have 92 million Americans outside the workforce, a level not seen since
the Carter years, and nearly $2 trillion of American wealth is
commandeered each year to be spent as Washington bureaucrats see fit,
through runaway regulation.
But it is a new day in America. An incoming administration promises a
new approach to make America great again. Central to that approach is
regulatory reform. The Obama administration abused regulation to force
its will on the American people. The assembling Trump administration
promises to wipe out abusive regulation, freeing Americans to innovate
and prosper once more. Today's legislation will give this new
administration the tools.
The heart of today's bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act, title
I, restores to the people the true right to be heard by Washington's
regulators. It commands Washington bureaucrats to listen to the facts
and ideas offered by the people and to follow them when they are better
than the bureaucracy's own. It calls on regulatory agencies to achieve
the benefits Congress has called on them through statutes to achieve.
But it gives the people full opportunities to offer fresh alternatives
for doing so and to vet with the agencies the facts and ideas that work
and those that don't.
After the public has fully contributed its say, agencies must choose
the lowest cost alternative proven to work, achieving the needed
benefits but rejecting unneeded costs. That leaves resources free to
generate the benefits, create the jobs, and yield the higher wages only
the private sector, through hard work and ingenuity, can achieve.
The other titles of the bill strongly buttress this reform.
Title II, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, wipes out
judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes and
regulations and restores to our system of checks and balances the rule
Justice Marshall declared in Marbury v. Madison that ``it is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is''--not the bureaucracy. When title II is law, our
courts will no more be rubber stamps for runaway regulatory
interpretations that burst the bounds of what Congress truly intended
through statutes.
Title III, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements
Act, provides teeth to existing law written to prompt regulatory
agencies to tailor flexibility for small businesses into their rules.
Small businesses have fewer resources to comply with Washington's
mandates. They need flexibility to survive. The terms of existing law
for too long have been ignored by Washington bureaucrats. Title III
assures the law will no longer be ignored, resulting in freedom and
flexibility for America's small businesses, which create the lion's
share of new jobs in this country and are pillars of communities across
this land.
Title IV prevents one of the most egregious of bureaucrats'
regulatory abuses: the promulgation of new rules that impose over a
billion dollars in annual compliance costs, which must then be complied
with even while meritorious litigation challenging their issuance
proceeds in court. Title IV, the REVIEW Act, eliminates this abuse,
forcing agencies to stay their billion-dollar rules administratively if
they are timely challenged in court.
And in titles V and VI of the bill, the ALERT Act and the Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, this legislation delivers
much-needed, greater transparency for the public about what new
regulations agencies are developing and proposing so they can better
prepare to comment on what is proposed, shape what is promulgated, and
comply with final rules.
With the help of these reforms, we can truly make America more
competitive again, put Americans back to work, and free America's
entrepreneurs to innovate and launch more exciting new products and
services again.
I thank my colleagues, Small Business Committee Chairman Chabot,
Subcommittee Chairman Marino, Representative Ratcliffe, and
Representative Luetkemeyer, who have joined me in contributing titles
to this legislation.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 5, the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. As you know, the
Committee on the Judiciary received an original referral and
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary
referral when the bill was introduced on January 3, 2017. I
recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this
legislation before the House of Representatives in an
expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform will forego action on the
bill.
The Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I
request your support for the appointment of conferees from
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any
House-Senate conference convened on this or related
legislation.
Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters
on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during
floor consideration to memorialize our understanding.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz: Thank you for consulting with the
Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory
Accountability Act,'' so that the bill may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor.
I agree that your foregoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this bill or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation.
I will seek to place our letters on H.R. 5 into the Congressional
Record during floor consideration of the bill. I appreciate your
cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing
to work together as this measure moves through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to you regarding H.R.
5, the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.'' The
legislation falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Small Business pursuant to Rule X, c1.1(q) of the Rules of
the House.
In the interest of permitting the Committee on the
Judiciary to proceed expeditiously to consideration of H.R. 5
on the House floor, I agree that the Committee on Small
Business be discharged from further consideration of the
bill. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Small Business
does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the
subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its
Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to
name members of the Committee on Small Business to any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation.
Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter
and would ask that a copy our exchange of letters be included
in the Congressional Record during consideration of the
measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and
others between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Steve Chabot,
Chairman.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
Hon. Steve Chabot,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business.
Dear Chairman Chabot: Thank you for consulting with the
Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory
Accountability Act,'' so that the bill may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor.
I agree that your foregoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this bill or similar legislation in
[[Page H325]]
the future. I would support your effort to seek appointment
of an appropriate number of conferees from your committee to
any House-Senate conference on this legislation.
I will seek to place our letters on H.R. 5 into the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill.
I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and
look forward to continuing to work together as this measure
moves through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition, of course, to H.R. 5, the so-called Regulatory
Accountability Act.
Under the guise of improving the regulatory process, H.R. 5 will, in
truth, undermine that process and jeopardize the ability of government
agencies to safeguard public health and safety, the environment,
workplace safety, and consumer financial protections.
It is not a pleasant picture. The ways in which this legislation
accomplishes this result are almost too numerous to list here, but, of
course, I will mention a few.
For example, title I of the bill would impose more than 70 new
analytical requirements that will add years to the rulemaking process.
Is that what we want to do? I don't think so.
Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate
the ability of regulated entities--such as well-funded corporate
interests--to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose.
And it would function as a ``super-mandate,'' overriding critical laws
that Congress specifically intended to prohibit agencies from
considering costs when American lives are at stake.
Additionally, the bill creates numerous procedural hurdles in the
rulemaking process, further endangering American lives through years of
delay and increasing the likelihood of regulatory capture.
{time} 1400
For example, H.R. 5 dramatically expands the use of formal
rulemaking, a time- and resource-intensive process, requiring formal,
trial-like hearings for certain rules. Formal rulemaking has long been
roundly rejected for good cause as being excessively costly and ill-
suited for complex policy issues.
The administrative section of the American Bar Association noted that
``these provisions run directly contrary to a virtual consensus in the
administrative law community that the Administrative Procedure Act
formal rulemaking procedure is obsolete.''
I am also concerned that H.R. 5 would impose an arbitrary, one-size-
fits-all, 6-month delay on virtually every new rule. Specifically,
title V of the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming effective
until the information required by the bill has been available online
for 6 months with only limited exception.
Clearly, H.R. 5 fails to take into account a vast array of time-
sensitive rules ranging from the mundane, such as the frequent United
States Coast Guard bridge closings regulations, to those that protect
public health and safety, such as forthcoming updates to the Lead and
Copper Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the lead
in public drinking water.
Finally, title II of H.R. 5 would eliminate judicial deference to
agencies and require Federal courts to review all agency rulemakings
and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis. The unfortunate
result of this requirement is that the bill would empower a generalist
court to override the determinations of agency experts, regardless of
the judge's technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying
subject matter.
By eliminating any deference to agencies, H.R. 5 would force agencies
to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations, which
would further delay the finalization of critical lifesaving regulatory
protections.
The Supreme Court has recognized that Federal courts simply lack the
subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable,
and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the
bench. It is ironic that those who have long decried judicial activism
now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency
rulemaking.
These are only a few of the many serious concerns presented by H.R.
5, and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this
dangerous legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
AFL-CIO
Legislative Alert,
Washington, DC, January 10, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing
to express our strong opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory
Accountability Act of 2017. This sweeping bill, which
packages six anti-regulatory measures passed by the House in
the last Congress, would upend 40 years of labor, health,
safety and environmental laws, threaten new needed
protections leaving workers and the public in danger. The
AFL-CIO urges you to oppose this harmful legislation.
The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) is drafted as an
amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but it
goes far beyond establishing procedures for rulemaking. The
RAA acts as a ``super mandate'' overriding the requirements
of landmark legislation such as the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and Mine Safety and Health Act. The bill would
require agencies to adopt the least costly rule, instead of
the most protective rule as is now required by the OSH Act
and MSH Act. It would make protecting workers and the public
secondary to limiting costs and impacts on businesses and
corporations.
The RAA will not improve the regulatory process; it will
cripple it. The bill adds dozens of new analytical and
procedural requirements to the rulemaking process, adding
years to an already slow process. The development of major
workplace safety rules already takes 8--10 years or more,
even for rules where there is broad agreement between
employers and unions on the measures that are needed to
improve protections. OSHA's silica standard to protect
workers from deadly silica dust took nearly 19 years and the
beryllium standard 15 years. The RAA will further delay
needed rules and cost workers their lives.
The RAA substitutes formal rulemaking for the current
procedures for public participation for high impact rules and
other major rules upon request. These formal rulemaking
procedures will make it more difficult for workers and
members of the public to participate, and give greater access
and influence to business groups that have the resources to
hire lawyers and lobbyists to participate in this complex
process. For agencies that already provide for public
hearings, such as OSHA and MSHA, the bill would substitute
formal rulemaking for the development of all new rules,
overriding the effective public participation processes
conducted by these agencies.
H.R. 5 would subject all agencies--including independent
agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) to these new analytical and
procedural requirements. It would be much more difficult for
agencies to develop and issue new financial reform rules and
consumer protection rules required under recently enacted
legislation.
This radical legislation doesn't just apply to regulations;
it would also require agencies to analyze the costs and
benefits of major guidance documents, even though these
documents are non-binding and have no legal force. Guidance
documents are an important tool for agencies to disseminate
information on significant issues and hazards quickly in
order to protect the public and workers. For example, in
response to the Ebola virus threat, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) issued critical guidance documents in order to
prevent the spread of disease, including recommendations for
infection control and protections for healthcare workers and
emergency responders. Similar guidance was issued was issued
to prevent transmission of the Zika virus. Under the RAA's
provisions, CDC would be required to assess the costs and
benefits of these major guidance documents, making it
virtually impossible to provide information and
recommendations in a timely manner.
H.R. 5 also includes a grab bag of other harmful anti-
regulatory measures that thwart, weaken and undermine
protections. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act
abolishes judicial deference to agencies' statutory
interpretations in rulemaking requiring a court to decide all
relevant questions of law de novo, allowing courts to
substitute their own policy judgements for the agencies'
expert policy determinations. The Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act (SBRFIA) imposes numerous
unnecessary new analytical and procedural requirements on all
agencies. It gives the Chief Counsel of the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, which in practice
operates largely as a mouthpiece for large business
interests, new broad powers to second guess and challenge
agency rules. The Require Evaluation before Implementing
Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act) would automatically stay
the implementation of any rule with an estimated annual cost
of $1 billion that has been challenged, precluding courts
from making this decision, and delaying protections. Other
titles add even more unnecessary requirements to the
rulemaking process.
The Regulatory Accountability Act would gut the nation's
safety, health and environmental laws, stripping away
protections
[[Page H326]]
from workers and the public. It would tilt the regulatory
process solidly in favor of business groups and others who
want to stop regulations and make it virtually impossible for
the government to issue needed safeguards. The AFL-CIO
strongly opposes H.R. 5 and urges you to vote against this
dangerous legislation.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
____
Consumer Reports,
January 10, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Consumer Reports and its policy and
mobilization arm, Consumers Union, urge you to vote no on
H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. This
dangerous proposal would do severe damage to protections
consumers depend on for health, safety, and honest treatment.
Congress has charged federal agencies with protecting the
public from threats such as tainted food, hazardous products,
dirty air and water, and predatory financial schemes. It
established these agencies, such as the Food and Drug
Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, so that public protections could be
overseen by professional civil servants with specific
technical and scientific expertise. In developing
regulations, agencies must act in accordance with the statute
and with established rulemaking procedures that require
transparency and full opportunity for public input, including
input from the industry that will be subject to the
regulation.
We agree that the regulatory process can certainly be
improved. We stand ready to support constructive efforts to
reduce delays and costs while preserving important
protections.
However, rather than streamlining and improving the
regulatory process, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017
would make current problems even worse. Under H.R. 5,
agencies would be required to undertake numerous costly and
unnecessary additional analyses for each rulemalcing, which
could grind proposed rules to a halt while wasting agencies'
resources. Collectively, these measures would create
significant regulatory and legal uncertainty for businesses,
increase costs to taxpayers and businesses alike, and prevent
the executive branch from keeping regulations up to date with
the rapidly changing modern economy.
One of the most damaging effects of H.R. 5 is that it
would, with only limited exceptions, require federal agencies
to identify and adopt the ``least costly'' alternative of a
rule it is considering. Currently, landmark laws like the
Clean Air Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, and Securities
Exchange Act require implementing agencies to put top
priority on the public interest. H.R. 5 would reverse this
priority by requiring agencies to value the bottom-line
profits of the regulated industry over their mission to
protect consumers and a fair, well-functioning marketplace.
H.R. 5 also includes several other damaging measures that
have not been included previously as part of the Regulatory
Accountability Act. These measures would add unjustifiable
costs and uncertainty to the rulemalcing process, and greatly
impair regulatory agencies' work.
Contrary to its name, the ``Separation of Powers
Restoration Act'' (Title II of H.R. 5) would disrupt the
carefully developed constitutional balance between the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Courts giving
appropriate deference to reasonable agency interpretations of
their own statutes, as reflected in Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v.
NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), is a well-settled approach that
promotes sound and efficient agency enforcement, with
effective judicial review. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts
retain full judicial power to review agency legal
interpretations, but do not simply substitute their own
judgment for an agency's. Chevron recognizes that agencies
accumulate uniquely valuable expertise in the laws they
administer, which makes deference from reviewing courts--
which do not have that expertise--appropriate.
Overturning this approach would lead to disaster. It would
severely hamper effective regulatory agency enforcement of
critical protections on which consumers depend. As the
Supreme Court stated in City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C.,
133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013): ``Thirteen Courts of Appeals
applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test would render
the binding effect of agency rules unpredictable and destroy
the whole stabilizing purpose of Chevron. The excessive
agency power that the dissent fears would be replaced by
chaos.'' Such a move also would needlessly force the courts
to repeatedly second-guess agency decisions that the courts
have already concluded the agency is in the best position to
make.
The REVIEW Act and the ALERT Act (Titles IV and V of H.R.
5) would cause additional needless and damaging delays to
public protections. The REVIEW Act--which would block ``high-
impact'' rules until every industry legal challenge has run
its full course--would tie up agencies in court indefinitely,
potentially making it impossible to address pressing national
problems. The ALERT Act would subject most new rules to a
delay of at least six months, and require agencies to waste
resources complying with repetitive reporting requirements.
Like the bill's proponents, we believe regulations should
be smart, clear, and cost-effective. However, H.R. 5 does not
accomplish this objective. Instead of improving the
regulatory process, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017
would make it dramatically slower, more costly to the nation,
and far less effective at protecting health, safety, and
other essential consumer priorities.
We strongly urge you to stand up for critical public
protections and vote no on H.R. 5.
Sincerely,
Laura MacCleery,
Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization, Consumer
Reports.
George P. Slover,
Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
William C. Wallace,
Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
____
Consumer Federation of America,
January 10, 2017.
Re Oppose legislation on House Floor to undermine crucial
consumer protections: H.R. 5.
Dear Representative: The Regulatory Accountability Act of
2017 (H.R. 5) would handcuff all federal agencies in their
efforts to protect consumers. H.R. 5 is a vastly expanded
version of previous versions of the Regulatory Accountability
Act (RAA). H.R. 5 not only significantly and problematically
amends the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which has
guided federal agencies for many decades but also now
incorporates five additional bills that thwart the regulatory
process: the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvement Act; the Require Evaluation before Implementing
Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act); the All Economic
Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT Act); the Separation
of Powers Restoration Act; and the Providing Accountability
Through Transparency Act. These titles make an already
damaging bill even worse.
Specifically, the RAA would require all agencies,
regardless of their statutorily mandated missions, to adopt
the least costly rule, without consideration of the impact on
public health and safety or the impact on our financial
marketplace. As such, the RAA would override important
bipartisan laws that have been in effect for years, as well
as more recently enacted laws to protect consumers from
unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe food and
unsafe consumer products.
For example, the RAA would likely have prevented the
Federal Reserve from adopting popular credit card rules under
the Truth in Lending Act in 2008 that prevented card
companies from unjustifiably increasing interest rates and
fees on consumers. This is because these far-reaching changes
to abusive practices that were widespread in the marketplace
were not the ``least costly'' options that were considered,
although they were arguably the most cost-effective.
The RAA would have a chilling impact on the continued
promulgation of important consumer protections. Had it been
in effect, for example, the RAA would have severely hampered
the implementation of essential and long-standing food safety
regulations, such as those requiring companies to prevent
contamination of meat and poultry products with deadly
foodborne pathogens. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention has credited the implementation of regulations
prohibiting contamination of ground beef with E. coli O157:H7
as one of the factors contributing to the recent success in
reducing E. coli illnesses among U.S. consumers.' But such
benefits are impossible to quantify before a rule is enacted.
Further, had the RAA been in effect the necessary child
safety protections required by the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) may have never been
implemented. For example, between 2007 and 2011 the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled 11 million
dangerous cribs. These recalls fol owed 3,584 reports of crib
incidents, which resulted in 1,703 injuries and 153 deaths.
As a direct result of the CPSIA, CPSC promulgated an
effective mandatory crib standard that requires stronger
mattress supports, more durable hardware, rigorous safety
testing, and stopped the manufacture and sale of drop-side
cribs. If the RAA were implemented, such a life saving rule
could have been delayed for years or never promulgated at
all, at countless human and financial cost.
The RAA also would add dozens of additional substantive and
procedural analyses, as well as judicial review to the
rulemaking process for every major rule. It would: expand the
kind of rules that must go through a formal rulemaking
process; require agencies to determine ``indirect costs''
without defining the term; require an impossible-to-conduct
estimation of a rule's impact on jobs, economic growth, and
innovation while ignoring public health and safety benefits;
and expand the powers of the White House's Office of
Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs to throw up numerous rulemaking roadblocks, including
requiring them to establish guidelines for conducting cost-
benefit analysis. This would further delay or prevent the
promulgation of much needed consumer protections.
The new titles of H.R. 5 also add numerous roadblocks to
the promulgation of necessary consumer protections. The
Separation of Powers Restoration Act (Title II) eliminates
[[Page H327]]
judicial deference that agencies are granted when rules are
challenged in court. This allows judicial activism and
political considerations to trump agency expertise. The Small
Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (Title III)
would increase regulatory delays and create new opportunities
for court challenge to regulations. The Require Evaluation
before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act)
(Title IV) would encourage frivolous legal challenges and
infuse the regulatory process with years of delay by
requiring courts reviewing ``high-impact'' regulations to
automatically ``stay'' or block the enforcement of such
regulations until all litigation is resolved. The All
Economic Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT Act) (Title
V) would also blatantly and purposefully lengthen the
regulatory process by requiring a six-month delay in the
development of regulations.
We urge you to oppose this significant threat to consumer
protection, a fair marketplace, health, and safety posed by
H.R. 5. If adopted, this proposal would waste federal
resources, minimize the ability of federal agencies to do
their jobs, grind the regulatory process to a halt, and
infuse the regulatory process with roadblocks preventing the
protection of the public and ultimately putting American
consumers at risk.
We strongly urge you to oppose this harmful bill.
Sincerely,
Rachel Weintraub,
Legislative Director and General Counsel.
____
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,
January 10, 2017.
Re Floor vote of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of
2017.
Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
(CSS), an alliance of over 150 labor, scientific, research,
good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and
public interest groups, strongly opposes H. R. 5, the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 (RAA), which will be
voted on this week.
H.R. 5 is a compilation of radical and harmful legislative
proposals that will permanently cripple the government's
ability to protect the public by rigging the regulatory
process against new regulatory safeguards in favor of
deregulation or regulatory inaction. The bill is just as
dangerous and extreme as the REINS Act (H.R. 26) and the
Midnight Rules Relief Act (H.R. 21).
All of these bills are designed to make it as difficult as
possible for federal agencies to implement existing or new
laws that ensure our access to clean air and water, safe
workplaces, untainted food and drugs, safe toys and consumer
goods, and a stable financial system free of Wall Street
recklessness. On the other hand, deregulatory actions that
repeal existing rules are exempt by virtue of the
legislation's myopic focus on ``costs'' to corporate special
interests instead of ``benefits'' to the public. In short,
the legislation will create a double standard in our
regulatory system that systematically favors deregulation
over new public protections and ``fast-tracks'' the repeal of
rules while paralyzing the creation of new ones.
The new version of the RAA, introduced in this Congress,
takes the previous RAA legislation and folds in several
destructive pieces of other so-called regulatory reform bills
including: the misleadingly named Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act, the Require Evaluation before
Implementing Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act), the All
Economic Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT Act), the
Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act. These pieces of
other bills seek to worsen an already destructive bill and
add several more corrosive layers intending to dismantle our
public protections.
The current rulemaking process is already plagued with
lengthy delays, undue influence by regulated industries, and
convoluted court challenges. If passed, Title I of this bill
would make each of these problems substantially worse and
would undermine our public protections and jeopardize public
health by threatening the safeguards that ensure our access
to clean air and water, safe workplaces, untainted food and
drugs, and safe toys and consumer goods.
Rather than enhancing protections, it does the exact
opposite. It adds 80 new analytical requirements to the
Administrative Procedure Act and requires federal agencies to
conduct estimates of all the ``indirect''costs and benefits
of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without
providing any definition of what constitutes, or more
importantly, does not constitute an indirect cost. The
legislation would significantly increase the demands on
already constrained agency resources to produce the analyses
and findings that would be required to finalize any new rule.
Thus, the RAA is designed to further obstruct and delay
rulemaldng rather than improve the regulatory process.
This legislation creates even more hoops for ``major'' or
``high-impact'' rules i.e., rules that provide society with
the largest health and safety benefits. It would allow any
interested person to petition the agency to hold a public
hearing on any ``genuinely disputed'' scientific or factual
conclusions underlying the proposed rule. This provision
would give regulated industries multiple opportunities to
challenge agency data and science and thus further stretch
out the already lengthy rulemaking process.
H.R. 5 would also create a restrictive mandate of a ``one-
size-fits-all'' directive that every federal agency adopt the
``least costly'' alternative. This is a profound change and
effectively creates a ``super-mandate'' for all major
regulatory actions of executive and independent agencies
which overrides twenty-five existing statutes, including the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act. These laws prioritize public health, safety, and
economic security, not the cost concerns of regulated
entities.
Title II of H.R. 5 is the Separation of Powers Restoration
Act piece which seeks to destroy the Chevron deference
principal. It would remove the judicial deference that
agencies are granted when their regulations are challenged in
court. This would be a radical change that upends one of the
fundamental principles in administrative law, namely that
courts should not second-guess scientific and technical
expertise at federal agencies. Overly intrusive judicial
review is one of the primary reasons for regulatory delay and
paralysis and this legislation would make those problems much
worse.
The misleadingly named Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act (Title III) is a Trojan horse
that would expand the reach and scope of regulatory review
panels, increase unnecessary regulatory delays, increase
undue influence by regulated industries and encourage
convoluted court challenges all in the name of helping
``small business,'' but so expansively applied that mostly
big businesses would benefit. Because the bill mandates that
these panels look at 'indirect costs,' which are defined very
broadly, it could be applied to virtually any agency action
to develop public protections.
The REVIEW Act (Title IV) would make our system of
regulatory safeguards weaker by requiring courts reviewing
``high-impact'' regulations to automatically ``stay'' or
block the enforcement of such regulations until all
litigation is resolved, a process that takes many years to
complete. It would add several years of delay to an already
glacially slow rulemaking process, invite more rather than
less litigation, and rob the American people of many critical
upgrades to science-based public protections, especially
those that ensure clean air and water, safe food and consumer
products, safe workplaces, and a stable, prosperous economy.
The ALERT Act (Title V) is designed to impede the
government's ability to implement critical new public health
and safety protections by adding a six-month delay. This
amounts to a six-month regulatory moratorium, even after the
often lengthy period required for developing and finalizing
these regulations. Such delays could extend well beyond that
initial six-month period should the OIRA Administrator fail
to post the required information in a timely manner.
This new version of the RAA would override and threaten
decades of public protections. The innocuous-sounding act is,
in reality, the biggest threat to public health standards,
workplace safety rules, environmental safeguards, and
financial reform regulations to appear in decades. It acts as
a ``super-mandate,'' rewriting the requirements of landmark
legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Occupational
Safety and Health Act and distorting their protective focus
to instead prioritize compliance costs.
We strongly urge opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory
Accountability Act of 2017.
Sincerely,
Robert Weissman,
President, Public Citizen Chair,
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
____
AFSCME,
We Make America Happen,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million working
and retired members of the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge
you to oppose the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 (H.R.
5). This reckless legislation would severely undermine the
nation's ability to ensure that workers are safe on the job
and in the marketplace. If enacted, H.R. 5 would effectively
end the federal government's ability to enact new protections
on behalf of the American people. Instead, the Regulatory
Accountability Act looks to protect businesses from people as
a platform for policymaking.
The Regulatory Accountability Act would upset the
constitutional balance between branches of the government and
impose new burdens on an already cumbersome regulatory
process. In rulemaking, federal agencies must adhere to the
requirements of the statue being implemented, and are often
given a roadmap from Congress. From there, federal agencies
must also follow the robust procedural and analytical
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review
Act,
The Regulatory Accountability Act adds more than 70 steps
to the regulatory process while giving corporate interests
more opportunities to influence and weaken standards. It
would require unnecessary Advance Notices for a large number
of rules, and impose unnecessary new evidentiary standards as
a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the regulatory
process to unneeded rounds of litigation.
[[Page H328]]
The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 will prevent
agencies from growing and addressing new issues for
environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer
financial security protections. We urge you to oppose this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) who is the chairman of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte. I
also want to thank Congressman Ratcliffe of Texas.
Included in H.R. 5 is the All Economic Regulations Are Transparent
Act, or the ALERT Act. I want to highlight that, in the past two
Congresses, the ALERT Act was reported favorably out of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
The ALERT Act itself is simply a transparency bill. It requires the
administration to provide meaningful information about upcoming
regulations online before those are actually issued. Early online
disclosure will create the need for transparency so the public can see
what is on the horizon.
Each month, Federal agencies will be required to list all regulations
expected to be proposed or finalized within the following year. For
each regulation on the list, the issuing agency is required to provide
basic information to the public about that regulation. This includes
the objectives of the regulation, the legal basis for the regulation,
and where it stands in the rulemaking process.
If the agency expects to finalize the regulation within the following
year, the agency is also required to provide information about the
impact of the regulation. This includes estimates on the costs, the
completion date, and the economic effects of the regulation, including
the net effect on jobs--something that doesn't happen now but seems to
be just common sense.
In this 21st century, Federal agencies should have to show their work
online so the public can engage. That is why I like what Mr. Ratcliffe
has championed since he has become a Member of this Congress. Let's
also understand and remember that, by the administration's own
estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over the last 10 years have
imposed the cost of at least $100 billion annually on the American
taxpayers.
Again, I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte's work and commitment on this
issue. I want to thank, again, our good friend, Congressman John
Ratcliffe, for his work on this. The Oversight and Government Reform
Committee has looked upon this very favorably. We are very supportive
of the overall bill, as well as this specific provision.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is a very active former member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 weeks, the majority has considered
three bills on the House floor designed to undermine the ability of the
executive branch to implement essential economic and public health
protections for the people we have the honor to represent: the so-
called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which could retroactively disallow
rules issued as far back as June of last year; the REINS Act, which
requires a majority vote of both Houses of Congress before any major
rule can go into effect; and today's Regulatory Accountability Act,
which is an 82-page omnibus bill which would effectively tie the
executive branch into so much red tape that environmental, workplace,
and consumer protections might never see the light of day.
By enacting these statutes, Congress would impair the constitutional
duty of the executive branch to ``take care that laws be faithfully
executed'' and replace them with a series of layers that can be applied
by deep-pocketed special interests, including one provision that
prevents some rules from going into effect that may affect public
safety if somebody files a lawsuit.
The question is: Who loses when these playing fields are tilted this
way? Well, just a couple within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Education and Labor, 4.2 million working people would lose. That is the
number of people who would be eligible for overtime pay as a result of
the responsible actions taken by the Obama administration. They would
lose the benefit of overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours a
week. Working families and seniors could lose their retirement savings.
Last year, the Obama administration released a fiduciary rule that
ensures that retirement savings are protected from financial advisers
who may prioritize fees over services. Without the rule, working
families and seniors could lose billions of dollars every year in
retirement savings by being unnecessarily charged by unscrupulous
financial advisers.
Students in low-income school districts could lose. Without the
Department of Education's new supplement-not-supplant rule, these
students would lose critical resources, and those resources would be
redirected to wealthier districts.
So let's be clear. The bill before us is not on the side of children,
workers, and retirees. Instead, the bill throws sand in the gears of
the regulatory process by adding more layers to the process, rigging it
in favor of powerful corporate interests, and encouraging frivolous
lawsuits. That is not what Congress should be focusing on. Instead, we
should be building on the progress that has been achieved over the last
8 years. We should be considering legislation that increases wages,
improves the lives of working families, increases access to high
quality child care and early childhood education, supports quality
public schools in every neighborhood, makes colleges more affordable,
helps American families balance work and family life, and empowers
workers to organize and collectively bargain.
That has been the focus of my Democratic colleagues on the Education
and the Workforce Committee, and that focus will remain in the years
ahead. So I urge the majority to partner with us to protect and promote
the rights of working people and students by defeating this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy) who is the distinguished majority leader of
the House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank the chairman for his work. I would also like to highlight a few
Members whose work is inside this bill. First, Congressman Marino,
Congressman Ratcliffe, Chairman Chabot, and Congressman Luetkemeyer
have all done a tremendous amount of work to make this bill here today,
and I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, we have a grave problem in our Federal Government. It
undermines our Constitution, it contradicts the will of the people, and
it is a deadweight on our economy destroying American jobs and costing
billions of dollars per year in paperwork and lost opportunities. I am
talking about the duplicative and unforgiving Federal bureaucratic
state.
But before I discuss the dangers that an overzealous bureaucracy
poses to our country, I want to be clear that the House has already
made great progress. We are engaged in a two-step approach: first, to
change the structure of Washington that deprives the people of their
power; and second, to repeal specific harmful regulations. We will get
started on the second part early next month.
We have already passed two bills last week to change Washington's
structure, the Midnight Rules Relief Act and the REINS Act. Today, we
will pass the third, the Regulatory Accountability Act. This requires
agencies to choose the least costly option available to do what they
are charged to do and prohibits large rules from going into effect
while they are still being challenged in court. It also ends something
called Chevron deference where courts automatically bend to the
agency's interpretation of the rules. Under the current standard, that
means the agency will win almost every single time in the courtroom and
the people lose.
These three bills are about more than stopping bad regulations from
being made. They are about changing the process in Washington that
systemically prioritizes government over the
[[Page H329]]
common good instead of making government serve the common good.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation is based on a principle that power
ultimately comes from the people. Elections are the great foundation of
our Republic, and, as we saw so clearly this last November, through
them, the people can make their voices heard. But something has
changed. Some of the most significant decisions in Washington, those
that most affect the lives of the public, are made by those who don't
stand for election.
What happens when the EPA imposes rules that deprive people of their
property rights, when the Department of Health and Human Services tries
to force nuns to violate their religion, or when the VA perpetuates a
system that lets veterans die while they wait for their care? The
people can't vote out bureaucrats who write rules at the EPA or the
Department of Health and Human Services. They can't vote out bad
leaders of the VA.
These bureaucrats know it. They know they aren't accountable to the
people even as they exercise great power. Without elections, the people
lose. Washington is brimming with executive employees devoted to
preserving the status quo.
Then there is a revolving door of high-level Federal employees who
head to major consulting firms and lobbying arms to influence the very
agencies they came from. This breeds thousands of regulations that
further enrich the connected and powerful--sometimes at the great
expense of the average American.
{time} 1415
It is our economy and the American workers who suffer the most.
Federal regulations written and enacted by these bureaucracies impose a
burden of about $1.89 trillion every year. That number is hard to make
sense of or to even imagine. It comes to, roughly, $15,000 per U.S.
household, or 10 percent of the American GDP.
The Obama administration alone has written regulations that require
over 583 million hours to comply with. That is an average of nearly 5
hours of paperwork for every single full-time employee in America. The
Federal Register is now the length of 80 King James Bibles.
When bureaucrats and agency heads cannot be held accountable and when
they keep their jobs regardless of corruption, incompetence, waste,
fraud, abuse, or the backroom deals they make with special interests,
that is the problem. That is the swamp, and we need to drain it.
There is a reason the House is restructuring Washington first. It is
that we made a commitment to the American people that we would drain
the swamp. Now we are today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5.
Before I go into that, let me be clear. After listening to the leader
a minute ago, I thank all of the Federal employees who work so hard and
give so much and who are so often unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and
unapplauded.
I oppose this unnecessary and potentially dangerous legislation in
its entirety. However, I will focus my remarks on title V of this bill,
which is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. Title V, also known as the ALERT Act, is an attack on agency
rulemaking, like the rest of this bill.
This title would prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs from taking into account benefits when providing estimating
costs of proposed and final rules. That is not transparency. It is one
side of the story.
This bill would also prevent a rule from taking effect until certain
information is posted online for 6 months by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The only exceptions to
this requirement would be if an agency exempts the rule from the notice
and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or if the
President issues an executive order.
That is a 6-month delay in putting any rule in place no matter how
big or how small. Right now, there are rules pending to protect the
public from pipeline accidents involving hazardous liquids--those are
our constituents, by the way--and to protect the privacy of patients'
records. Again, those are our constituents. This bill would put an
arbitrary 6-month moratorium on rules like these.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which is a coalition of over
150 labor, scientific, health and good government groups, sent a letter
on January 10, 2017, opposing H.R. 5 to all Members of the House of
Representatives.
That letter read in part:
The ALERT Act is designed to impede the government's
ability to implement critical new public health and safety
protections by adding a 6-month delay. This amounts to a 6-
month regulatory moratorium even after the often lengthy
period required for developing and finalizing these
regulations. Such delays could extend well beyond that
initial 6-month period should the OIRA Administrator fail to
post the required information in a timely manner.
The other titles of this bill are not any better and would impose so
many requirements on agencies that issuing regulations to protect
health and safety would be almost impossible.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform,
Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee and the chief sponsor of one
of the bills contained herein.
Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory
Accountability Act.
This bill represents a monumental opportunity for the American
people. After 8 years of one new crushing regulatory burden after
another, the time has come to finally free the American people and
create a new future for our economy.
In 2017, regulatory burdens are at record levels. One recent analysis
by the American Action Forum puts the cumulative paperwork burden on
the American people at 11.5 billion hours.
How could any small business person or entrepreneur survive in the
face of this monstrous web of regulation?
The short answer is that they cannot.
It is a fact seen across my district as I have talked to workers
covering every industry or occupation imaginable. When I ask
businessowners about their concerns, first and foremost, the greatest
hardship they face is the burden of Federal regulation and red tape.
Funds, which otherwise could be invested in new employees, training, or
equipment, must be dedicated to the demands of faceless bureaucrats in
D.C. This applies to plumbers as well as to farmers, manufacturers to
home builders. The list of those affected is long and varied.
The simple truth is that the Obama administration's one-size-fits-all
regulatory agenda has been a disaster for the American Dream, and we
have seen over the past several months how disconnected it was from the
wants and needs of Americans across the country.
In Congress, however, we have heard their pleas and have taken action
in the early days of the 115th Congress. H.R. 5 is the third regulatory
reform bill we have considered in 2 weeks. It represents our brightest
opportunity to unleash innovation and investment so that American
businesses, big and small, can create new futures.
I am also grateful that H.R. 5 includes my bill, the REVIEW Act. The
REVIEW Act was featured as part of Speaker Ryan's A Better Way agenda
and passed the House on a bipartisan basis last fall. It represents a
simple premise: regulations should be narrowly tailored, and massive
regulations deserve full and thorough scrutiny.
The REVIEW Act would mandate a stay of any high-impact, billion-
dollar regulation while judicial review is underway. Historically,
billion-dollar rules have been few and far between. In fact, only 26
have been put in place since 2006; but, in recent years, their
frequency has grown along with the unprecedented reach of the
regulatory state. In the past 8 years, an average of three per year
have been put in place.
Their significance, however, lies in their impact on our country.
These regulations are massive and have the potential to fundamentally
and irreversibly change entire industries. If, later, judicial review
finds the agency's reasoning to be legally unsound or contrary to the
intent of Congress, the
[[Page H330]]
compliance costs incurred--often meaning jobs that were lost--cannot be
undone. The REVIEW Act provides an important check on regulatory
largesse and is an important piece of this bill.
The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. It is
time for us all to take our country and the economy in the right
direction. The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the reforms that
are necessary to get us there.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a senior member of our committee who has
followed this matter very closely.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, these bills are a group of bills that have been
considered for many years and have passed on partisan votes in the
House. What you do when you repeal regulations or make it harder to
have regulations is you make it better for business, better for the
Chamber crowd, better for the manufacturing folk.
But there is always a cost for everything. I think it was Isaac
Newton who said: ``For every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction.'' You take these regulations off, increase business, and make
it easier; but there is an equal and opposite effect in that Newtonian
law as the consumer of the products.
Whether it is food and food safety, whether it is water safety and
purity, whether it is air safety, whether it is toys and manufacturers'
defects or automobiles and safety in transportation--it could be
airplane transportation--there is always a side that loses; and the
side that loses is that of the consumers and the folks who will be
injured and/or killed because of lack of regulations.
I don't know how much one life is worth. If it is mine or one of my
loved ones or one of my constituents--I am getting a little political
here--it is worth a lot, but it is worth a lot no matter who it is, and
there are going to be lots of people who will not survive some of these
regulations. There are going to be injuries in the workplace because
regulations for safety aren't there. There will be food products that
are defective because regulations aren't in place, and people will eat
food that is not appropriate, not pure.
I had an amendment I proposed here on civil rights, and I think civil
rights is one of our most precious rights--one that has been neglected
on many occasions. That amendment would have said that this would not
affect any civil rights rules, but it was not put in order; but it
includes people with disabilities. Those are areas in which we should
have exempted and not had anything stop our steadfastness toward
securing civil rights and securing opportunities for people with
disabilities.
I am against the bills. I am for the consumer. I think there might be
a measured way to do this, but this is a heavy-handed way to do it, and
the consumer loses.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee, a
member of the Judiciary Committee, and the chief sponsor of one of the
bills contained herein.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory
Accountability Act.
In response to the previous gentleman's comments, I would just note
that none of the regulations that we are considering today--the
legislation--is going to do away with regulations altogether or even
significantly, especially, regulations that have to do with people's
safety. We are not trying to do anything that is going to affect the
safety of the American people. We are just trying to make sure the
regulations are smarter, and that is what this is all about.
I am also pleased that title III of H.R. 5 is a bill that I sponsored
last term and in this Congress--the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act. The Committee on Small Business, which I
happen to chair, and the Committee on the Judiciary have crafted this
bill with bipartisan input over many years.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte for working with us on this important
legislation, and I thank him for his leadership.
Small businesses are found in every congressional district and in
every industry. They provide livelihoods for millions of workers and
for their families. Small businesses employ nearly half of the private
sector workforce and generate two out of every three new jobs in the
private sector today. The Federal Government should be doing everything
it can to encourage these small but mighty job creators. Unfortunately,
oppressive red tape has had the opposite effect of discouraging
investment, expansion, and job growth. I am not saying that all
regulations are bad, but there are too many rules. For too long,
agencies have ignored their true effect, their true impact, on small
businesses. Small businesses are at a real disadvantage because they
have fewer resources and rarely have in-house counsel, the regulatory
compliance staff that would be necessary to guide them through this
maze. Generally, small businesses just don't have that.
So shouldn't regulators, at the very least, examine the effects of
new rules on small businesses and consider ways to reduce excessive
burdens?
Of course they should. There is a law, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, or the RFA, which requires agencies to conduct this commonsense
assessment when they regulate. Even though the law has been on the
books for over 36 years, agencies too frequently just ignore its
requirements.
{time} 1430
The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, which is
title III in this bill, eliminates loopholes that agencies like the
Internal Revenue Service have used to avoid compliance with the RFA. It
also forces agencies to analyze not only the direct, but also the
indirect effects of rules on small businesses, just as agencies are
required to do when promulgating major rules affecting, for example,
the environment. It gives small businesses additional opportunities for
early input on proposed rules and regulations and strengthens the RFA's
requirements for agencies to periodically review old rules.
Nothing in our legislation today takes away an agency's ability to
issue a rule or a regulation, but it will force the rulemakers to think
carefully before they act. It is great legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the
chief sponsor of two of the measures contained here.
Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for
the opportunity to again lead on this issue and for the inclusion of
two of my bills--the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the ALERT
Act--in this incredibly important regulatory reform package.
Because you see, Mr. Chairman, the realities of President Obama's
failed liberal progressive experiment are all too real for the three-
quarters of a million Texans that I represent, realities like higher
prices for families in Sulphur Springs trying to make ends meet, fewer
jobs for those seeking work in Texarkana, and small businesses in
Sherman and Rockwall forced to close their doors. Mr. Chairman, these
are just a few of the countless devastating symptoms of overregulation
that citizens across our great country have been forced to endure under
President Obama.
The President gives a good speech, and he did so again in his
farewell address last night. But the President read us a fictional tale
last night. The inescapable truth is that for 8 long years, the
constant stream of regulations being pumped out by the Obama
administration has taken a terrible toll on families, on businesses,
and on our economy. It has made our Nation less prosperous and leaves
folks worse off than they were before.
The urgency to reverse this unsustainable regulatory quagmire
couldn't have been made more clear than in November, when the American
people rose up and voted for a new President who vowed not to subject
us to more of the same. That is where my
[[Page H331]]
bill and all of the bills in the Regulatory Accountability Act come
into play.
When you look back at the last 8 years, many people wonder how the
Obama administration was allowed to grow at such an alarming rate. Now,
while there are a lot of troubling factors that go into that equation,
the result of an infamous 1984 Supreme Court decision, the Chevron
doctrine, is certainly recognized as one of the key culprits. For three
decades now, this doctrine has required courts to defer to agency
interpretations of congressional intent.
Said in more plain terms, Mr. Chairman, this means that when
individuals challenge Federal regulators in court, the deck is stacked
in favor of the regulators, the very same regulators who have written
the regulations in the first place. Letting regulators grade their own
papers, if that doesn't reinforce the need to drain the swamp, then I
don't know what does.
My legislation, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, will fix
this perversion of our Constitution by ensuring that Congress, not
executive branch agencies, write our laws and that courts, not agency
bureaucrats, interpret our laws.
Mr. Chairman, title V of this bill is my ALERT Act legislation, and
it provides another critical remedy to the current regulatory process
by fixing the lack of transparency that is both unfair and harmful to
individuals and small businesses across the country.
Right now, the current law requires the administration to release an
update twice a year on the regulations that are being developed by
Federal agencies--the problem is that the regulators are ignoring the
law--as these updates have either been very late or never issued at all
under President Obama's watch.
Up to this point, there hasn't been a way to reinforce and enforce
these requirements. So the ALERT Act tackles this problem by forcing
the executive branch to make the American people aware of regulations
that are coming down the track; and it prohibits any regulations from
going into effect unless and until detailed information on the cost of
the regulation, its impact on jobs, and the legal basis for the
regulation have been available to the public on the Internet for at
least 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, the way our government has been allowed to function
under this administration isn't how our forefathers intended our
government to work. Today's legislation takes a giant step forward in
fixing how Washington works. I have already spoken to President-elect
Trump about partnering together to make this the law of the land and to
give the American people back the government that our Founders
intended, a government that works for them, not the other way around.
Mr. Chairman, we owe them nothing less.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Donovan). The gentleman from Virginia has 9
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 5 and urge my
colleagues to do so as well. This bill will reform our regulatory
system and reduce burdens on our farmers, ranchers, and businesses.
H.R. 5 will create a more streamlined, transparent, and accountable
regulatory process and give the American people a stronger voice in
agency decisionmaking.
Requiring agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking option and
providing additional opportunities for judicial review will ensure that
regulations are narrowly tailored, addressing the issues at hand; and
this will reduce the burden on farmers, ranchers, businesses, and
everyday citizens.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chief sponsor of one of the bills
contained herein.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the
bill on the floor before us, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.
Over the last 8 years, it has been clear that our country has been on
the wrong path. Through overregulation and government bureaucracy, the
chance at the American Dream has seemed to be slipping away and
unreachable for far too many Americans. In November, the American
people spoke and made it clear: it is time to change course and reform
the rulemaking process to energize robust growth in the American
economy.
To do so, we not only need to address the number of Federal
regulations, but also their convoluted and complex nature. Our
constituents should not need a law degree or an army of consultants and
accountants to understand the rules they are required to follow.
Nevertheless, given their technical language, it can be extremely
difficult to fully understand proposals unless one is an expert in that
field.
Title VI of H.R. 5 includes language from a bill that I introduced
earlier in this Congress. My bill, the Providing Accountability Through
Transparency Act, would require each Federal agency, when providing
notice of a proposed rulemaking, to produce a 100-word, plain-language
summary of the proposal and make it publicly available online. This
commonsense reform would give the American people straightforward and
uncomplicated access to the rules proposed by the executive branch.
The American people deserve to be informed about the rules and
regulations being proposed by their government, and I am honored to
have my legislation included in this regulation-curbing package.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on H.R. 5, as well as
my colleagues who joined me in contributing language to this critical
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5,
the Regulatory Accountability Act.
Many speaking today in support of this legislation are right to point
out the crushing impact that Washington's overregulation has had on our
economy. We know all too well how overregulation has driven up the cost
of health care, financial services, and energy; and it is long past
time for reform.
I would like to highlight a provision of this legislation that I
offered 3 years ago that requires agencies to identify when new rules
will have a negative impact on jobs and wages.
Too often, regulators and agency heads are well aware of the negative
impact a regulation will have on Americans' jobs and wages even before
it is imposed, but they impose it anyway. Specifically, my provision
defines when rules have a negative impact on jobs and wages and
requires agency heads approving such a rule to submit a statement that
they approve the rule knowing its negative impact.
When people in this far-off Capitol take away the jobs and livelihood
of working families, as they have done with miners and power plant
workers and laborers in my district, they need to own up to it. The
Regulatory Accountability Act will help us to provide American workers
with substantial relief from what is often Washington overreach, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the House Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and
the distinguished ranking member for convening us. It reenforces my
commitment to the importance of the House Judiciary Committee for
important, innovative, and groundbreaking, in some instances, work that
we have done.
In this instance, I find fault because this legislation does not meet
that criteria. Just a few days ago, we read the
[[Page H332]]
Constitution, and some might make the argument that H.R. 5 fits very
comfortably into the Bill of Rights, Amendment V and Amendment XIV.
Both frame themselves around the question of due process. I make the
argument that this legislation is sorely lacking.
I want to take up, first of all, a point made by my colleague, a
member of the Rules Committee. This legislation, to my recalling, has
been circulated for many years. It seems that I have been in the House
when a bill like H.R. 5 has passed over and over again.
This bill appeared in the 114th Congress. Many Members left since
that time. New Members are here. New Members, Republicans and
Democrats, will be added to the House Judiciary Committee and to the
Senate Judiciary Committee. None of them will have had the opportunity
for regular order, to be able to ensure hearings and to be able to
engage in input with amendments that I would agree or disagree with,
but to have a vigorous debate in our Judiciary Committee as well as in
the Senate. It did not happen. We are now on the floor of the House. So
that is one fracture of what we are doing, one Achilles' heel to this
legislation.
In the last 24 hours, I heard a news account of a little boy who
swallowed magnets that were produced by a particular company. It went
through the process. It was designated dangerous; and then,
unfortunately, that dangerous status was pulled back, and the company
is excited about producing those magnets again.
The little boy who swallowed the magnets, I think, was about 2 years
old. A happy little boy, of course, that is how children are. He had
major intestinal surgery, and most of his intestines were removed. He
is now 6 years old, and he must now be fed intravenously.
{time} 1445
His devastation is our failure. That is what we are facing with H.R.
5.
I don't know if my colleagues agree, as boring as the Administrative
Procedure Act was in law school, I liked the course. I had a great
professor who made me understand the life of the APA and its value.
This legislation attempts to rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act
to the detriment of the American people.
Consider this, hardworking agencies should have oversight; that is
what our committees are all about. They should have oversight. They
will now have to jump through hoops of 70 new criteria. I didn't say
10; I didn't say a quarter of 100, 25; I didn't say a half of 100, 50;
but 70 when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal,
the scope of the problems the rule meant to address, and potential cost
and benefits of the proposal and alternative.
I want to see small businesses thrive. Part of that includes a
reasonable healthcare package like ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act,
for its employees, a reasonable new structure dealing with taxation
that helps small businesses and does not give a mountain of benefit to
major corporations.
Maybe we should address the needs of small businesses in that manner,
or, as my minority constituents tell me, access to credit which is
generally denied to women, Hispanics, in some instances, and certainly
African Americans. That may help our small businesses get them back on
their feet. But that is not what H.R. 5 does. It stifles the work of
our agencies of which we have attributed to them, the Small Business
Administration, Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade
Commission, the FCC, and, in some instances, the Department of Justice
articulating regulations dealing with funding of juvenile issues.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
These are agencies that are depended upon to give regular order.
Oversight is important, but I would make the argument that stifling,
denying, demolishing, or destroying is not order.
Now, I had an amendment that I think is crucial. It is to provide an
exception under this bill for regulations that help prevent cyber
attacks on election processes or institutions. Mr. Chairman, not only
have we found with much profoundness that a foreign entity, in this
instance Russia, maybe it might be Iran, maybe it might be some other
country, intruded into the democratic process of elections. I am glad
Senator Graham said this is not Republicans or Democrats. This is about
the integrity of the election system. And why we were hesitant to make
this amendment in order, because there is no stopping of the peaceful
transfer of government. The American people see to that process. Thank
God for our love of democracy. We are able to express our opposition in
many different ways.
But there is no doubt there was not only intrusion, there was skewing
from one candidate versus another. There are prints--this is public
knowledge--that have been able to be tracked to suggest who, what, and
what country, and how far up the chain to Mr. Putin that it went to.
So my amendment, I think, was constructive. Why would we be reluctant
to debate it? Why would we be reluctant to acknowledge the intelligence
report assessing Russian activities and intentions in the recent U.S.
elections? And why would we be reluctant to find out who was involved?
H.R. 5 is not doing what it is supposed to do. It is, in fact,
undermining the Constitution and eliminating the protections for a
little boy who now lives his life completely different because maybe we
didn't intervene in the regulatory manner of oversight over that
product that we should have, and maybe now we have given them a pass so
that other children might suffer the same consequences. I ask my
colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and send it back for us
to do the work of the people in regular order.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 5, and let's get back to what we are talking about. We are talking
about overregulation right now. We are not talking about the Red army
or any other type of a red threat that is coming in here. The real
threat is red tape. We are not talking about scotch tape or duct tape,
we are talking about red tape. There is $2 trillion worth of red tape
that the American consumers have to pay for every year. That is
trillion with a ``T.'' Every single regulation that goes into effect,
not by elected officials but by unelected bureaucrats, I am not saying
they are not well intended, I am just saying they are not well thought
out. And we really don't know who is going to pay for all of these. The
burden is on the American consumers, the American taxpayers.
So if we are talking about creating jobs and if we are talking about
getting our economy back on track, let's get the heavy regulatory boot
of the American government off of the throat of American job creators.
Why don't we make it easier for people to be profitable. Why don't we
make it easier for people to start a new business. Why don't we make
the prices cheaper on the shelves, and all of the services that are out
there cheaper for the American people to buy and purchase.
We get caught up in debate about things that don't make sense to
everyday Americans. They elect us to come and represent them. They
don't elect us to preach to them. They don't elect us to say: You,
poor, stupid people, you don't understand, we are trying to help you.
The Congress has oversight of this. This is our job. Why would we
turn it over to unelected bureaucrats. How about this: In 2015, we
passed 114 laws. Meanwhile, there were 3,410 rules that were put into
effect. Is there a little bit of a problem with the balance there? Is
there a little bit of a problem with the people who sent us to
represent them telling them: you don't understand, that rule, that
regulation, I never had a chance to weigh in on it?
They are asking: Then why the heck did we send you?
And I appreciate the fact that Federal employees need to be
appreciated. Being one of those employees, I do appreciate that. When I
go home, I love when people tell me: you know what, we really
appreciate that you are standing up for us. We really appreciate that
you are watching where our tax dollars are going. We really appreciate
the fact that you are trying to make it easier for us to breathe, make
[[Page H333]]
it easier for us to succeed, make it easier for us to supply all this
revenue.
Every single penny that this government needs to run on is not
supplied by the Congress, it is supplied by hardworking American
taxpayers. And you know what, we can't even collect enough money from
them to cover our bills. We have to go out and borrow more. But they
are responsible for it. We sign their name on every single debt that we
make.
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about some
other debate. This is about what we are doing to hardworking American
taxpayers and hardworking Americans every single day.
Then some say: you don't understand, you poor, stupid people, we are
trying to make the air clean and the water drinkable. Yes, I understand
that. That is what we are doing. Why do you try to change it into
something that doesn't even make sense? Please go back into your
communities and talk to these folks that are saddled with these
expenses and look them in the eye and tell them you are just not smart
enough to know how government works. The one thing they know is we are
$20 trillion in the red.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and
the chairman.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of
2017. I have a number of concerns with many provisions of this
voluminous page, this 82-page bill. It has not gone through regular
order, not one committee meeting. Congress just came into session last
week. So we have got 50-plus new Members in this body who have not had
one single day of an opportunity to pay any attention to learn what is
in this bill. Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
going to force their folks to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I urge them to
vote ``no'' and think about it. The reason they should think about it
is because H.R. 5 is a destructive revision of the Administrative
Procedure Act which fiendishly convolutes the agency rulemaking process
through numerous analytical requirements. We call that gumming up the
works.
These requirements, which are largely opposed by the Nation's leading
administrative law experts, would cause years of delays in the
rulemaking process and deregulate entire industries through rulemaking
avoidance by agencies.
In addition to imposing over 60 new procedural requirements on
regulatory protections, title I of H.R. 5 imposes a new super-mandate
requiring that agencies adopt the least costly rule considered during
the rulemaking that meets relevant statutory objectives and permits
agencies to choose a more expensive option only if the additional
benefits justify its additional costs.
The AFL-CIO has observed that this provision would make protecting
workers and the public secondary. Limiting costs and impacts on
business and corporations is the prime purpose of this legislation.
There is little doubt that this proposal will compromise public health,
workplace safety, and environmental protections. Agencies will be
forced to make penny-wise and pound-foolish decisions. It costs more to
remedy an environmental or financial calamity than it would be to
protect the public from the calamity occurring in the first place,
which the underlying regulation would do, but they don't want
regulations. This is unbelievable.
Title II of the bill abolishes judicial deference to agencies'
reasoned statutory interpretations, which has been a hallmark of
judicial review for more than three decades. Talk about judicial
restraint and not legislating from the bench. That is what the Supreme
Court in its Chevron rule has emphasized over the last three decades.
In addition to incentivizing judicial activism by generalist courts,
which could engage in rulemaking from the bench by making policy
decisions rather than strictly interpreting the law, this provision
will also make the regulatory system more costly and time-consuming
because it would require agencies to take even more time to promulgate
critical protections that the court ultimately decides on its own
through its ability to legislate from the bench that it doesn't like.
This is nonsense. It is hypocritical.
Title III of the bill further paralyzes agency rulemaking through
unworkable, complex requirements, while endowing the hallowed Small
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy with broad authority to
act as the gatekeeper of our Nation's entire regulatory system. As the
Center for Progressive Reform reported in a 2013 report, this entity,
this Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, exists in an
unchecked capacity to funnel ``special interest pressure into agency
rulemakings, even though such interests have already had ample
opportunity to comment on proposed regulations.''
So in other words, the Small Business Administration's Office of
Advocacy is a back door wide open to corporate interests seeking to
come in and undermine the regulatory authority of an agency.
At a time when there has been much talking and tweeting about
draining the swamp, this measure would function as a green light to
special interests to manipulate the regulatory system in their favor.
Moreover, my Republican colleagues' repeated claims that this measure
will create regulation by representation, or clawback authority from
the executive branch, that argument is fundamentally undermined by the
fact that this bill consolidates the role of a subagency, the Small
Business Administration, in such an opaque and reckless manner.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Have Members ever heard of any legislation
that purports to take power back from unelected bureaucrats and then
places it right back in the hands of a bureaucrat in the same piece of
legislation? This is ridiculous.
Title IV of H.R. 5 would automatically delay the effective date of
any rule exceeding $1 billion in costs that is challenged in court,
regardless of whether the party challenging the rule has any likelihood
of success on the merits, is actually harmed by the rule, or whether
staying the rule would be contrary to public interest.
{time} 1500
So while they sit here and take the rights of regular, ordinary
working people to sue corporations under the guise of so-called tort
reform, they turn around in this legislation, open the courthouse door
wide to corporations to come in and file frivolous complaints against a
regulation and automatically stall it. This is ridiculous.
This legislation is rife with corporate protections at the expense of
the people, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.
Over the last 8 years, we have seen the administration authorize
hundreds of executive orders directing Federal agencies to issue,
finalize, and implement an unprecedented number of regulations. Most of
these impose one-size-fits-all standards on small businesses with
little to no consideration for their impact on small businesses.
As a member of the Small Business Committee, it is kind of my job to
go out and find out what small businesses have to offer, what is
impeding their ability to create and make more jobs for our industry
and for our economy. What we have found is that overregulation is
stifling them. This is the problem.
This is not something that we have made up. That is the problem in
this economy. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 5, and
particularly title III, which addresses one vital area that protects
small businesses--the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA.
The RFA requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of new
regulations on small businesses. However, Federal agencies regularly
exploit loopholes in the RFA requirements that allow them to produce
inadequate or inaccurate analysis of impact.
We know this can have devastating outcomes, as witnessed in the
Department of Labor's overtime rule issued
[[Page H334]]
last year, which was one of the top concerns for many of the small
businesses and nonprofits that operate in my district and across this
country.
Title III of H.R. 5 would eliminate loopholes to ensure compliance
and would also require agencies to provide more detailed information in
each analysis.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this has been an enlightening discussion
because we have determined that H.R. 5 is based on the faulty premise
that environmental and public safety protections kill jobs, result in
economically stifling costs, and promote uncertainty.
In fact, regulatory protections that ensure the safety of American-
made products unquestionably foster job creation and protect the
competitiveness of our business and global marketplace. This explains
why so many organizations--more than 150--strongly oppose this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents and the American citizens deserve
something better than H.R. 5. We need legislation that creates middle
class financial security and opportunity. We need sensible regulations
that protect American families from economic ruin, that bring predatory
financial practices to an end.
We need workplace safety protections that ensure hardworking
Americans can go to work each day without having to risk their lives as
a result of hazardous work environments.
Unfortunately, the measure before us does nothing to advance any of
these critical goals, and so I must, therefore, oppose H.R. 5 and ask
my colleagues to support a negative vote on this matter.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The facts are plain, the conclusion is clear: the rampant tide of
unchecked, unbalanced Federal regulation is overwhelming job creators
and households all across this Nation. Thanks to Washington's endless
excess of regulations, hardworking Americans face higher prices, lower
wages, fewer jobs, and fewer new business starts; and America as a
whole is less competitive, less innovative, and less prosperous.
Federal regulations now impose an estimated burden of an amazing
$1.89 trillion per year. That burden is burying America's job creators
and suffocating job opportunities. It equals roughly $15,000 per U.S.
household, over 10 percent of America's GDP, and more than the GDP of
all but eight countries in the world.
The Obama administration set new records for numbers and effects of
major regulations, over 600 in total, with an average of 81 per year.
That is roughly one every 3 working days. Through just August 2016,
these rules had economic effects of over $740 billion and imposed 194
million paperwork burden-hours; and this only built upon the
insufficiently checked regulation already imposed by previous
administrations.
This problem must be solved, and this bill is the number one solution
to this problem. Its bold, innovative measures will unleash American
freedom, opportunity, and resourcefulness by dramatically reducing new
regulatory costs; and they will do that while still allowing agencies
to achieve the benefits that Congress' statutes have tasked them to
achieve.
Far fewer costs, all the benefits, who could be against that? We all
should be for it, just as the American people are.
Support the American people. Support the Regulatory Accountability
Act. I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5,
the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,'' which is a radical
measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations
to protect the public.
I oppose this legislation because it would effectively shut down the
entire U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock
existing regulatory statute.
My opposition to H.R. 5 is amplified by the Rules Committee's
decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to
provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on
election processes or institutions.''
Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the
subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian
cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure.
Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified
version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian
Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed
that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was
the subject of cyberattacks.
These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have
been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and
were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential
contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald
Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to
invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his
political opponent.
All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment.
The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition if to
this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it
harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the
entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests.
The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues
to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies.
These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that
are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of
agency actions and policy rationale.
For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are
in the best position to carry out the statutes.
The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less
experienced judges to second guess expert opinion--essentially
sanctioning judicial activism.
The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous
legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans
so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our
highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions.
The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from
our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the
threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber
networks.
As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist
Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected
officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately
concerned constituents.
To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule,
let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson
Lee Amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the
Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted.
The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation
dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national
security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American
people.
We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the
election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about
the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the
institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and
will not be tolerated.
The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the
uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders'
intentions.
On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the
goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision
makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful,
and that adhere to tradecraft standards.
Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community
provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best
and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential
opportunities to advance U.S. national security.
This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand
complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to
hide or obfuscate their activities.
My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those
regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack
from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals.
Specifically, the amendment that the Rules Committee disallowed for
presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the
American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering,
alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign
countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining
election processes or institutions.
[[Page H335]]
In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in
further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network
defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious
actor might deploy or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in
addition to protecting data that enables cybersecurity firms and other
network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian
intelligence services use.
The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the
American public.
Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game
the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict.
It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new
public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their
legal obligations.
The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic
processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent
activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to
interfere with elections is also warranted.
We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of
cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow
doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence
elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S.
government.
My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of
our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve
the proponents' major purposes.
For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory
Accountability Act of 2017''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Rule making.
Sec. 104. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major guidance;
presidential authority to issue guidelines for issuance
of guidance.
Sec. 105. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of
proof; evidence; record as basis of decision.
Sec. 106. Actions reviewable.
Sec. 107. Scope of review.
Sec. 108. Added definition.
Sec. 109. Effective date.
TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Judicial review of statutory and regulatory interpretations.
TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Clarification and expansion of rules covered by the
regulatory flexibility act.
Sec. 303. Expansion of report of regulatory agenda.
Sec. 304. Requirements providing for more detailed analyses.
Sec. 305. Repeal of waiver and delay authority; additional powers of
the Chief Counsel for advocacy.
Sec. 306. Procedures for gathering comments.
Sec. 307. Periodic review of rules.
Sec. 308. Judicial review of compliance with the requirements of the
regulatory flexibility act available after publication of
the final rule.
Sec. 309. Jurisdiction of court of appeals over rules implementing the
regulatory flexibility act.
Sec. 310. Establishment and approval of small business concern size
standards by Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
Sec. 311. Clerical amendments.
Sec. 312. Agency preparation of guides.
Sec. 313. Comptroller general report.
TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS
ACT
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Relief pending review.
TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT
Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Office of information and regulatory affairs publication of
information relating to rules.
TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Requirement to post a 100 word summary to regulations.gov.
TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Regulatory Accountability
Act''.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
Section 551 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(15) `major rule' means any rule that the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
determines is likely to impose--
``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more, adjusted annually for inflation;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, local, or tribal
government agencies, or geographic regions;
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the
economy;
``(16) `high-impact rule' means any rule that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs determines is likely to impose an annual cost on the
economy of $1,000,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for
inflation;
``(17) `negative-impact on jobs and wages rule' means any
rule that the agency that made the rule or the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
determines is likely to--
``(A) in one or more sectors of the economy that has a 6-
digit code under the North American Industry Classification
System, reduce employment not related to new regulatory
compliance by 1 percent or more annually during the 1-year,
5-year, or 10-year period after implementation;
``(B) in one or more sectors of the economy that has a 6-
digit code under the North American Industry Classification
System, reduce average weekly wages for employment not
related to new regulatory compliance by 1 percent or more
annually during the 1-year, 5-year, or 10-year period after
implementation;
``(C) in any industry area (as such term is defined in the
Current Population Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics) in which the most recent annual unemployment rate
for the industry area is greater than 5 percent, as
determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Current
Population Survey, reduce employment not related to new
regulatory compliance during the first year after
implementation; or
``(D) in any industry area in which the Bureau of Labor
Statistics projects in the Occupational Employment Statistics
program that the employment level will decrease by 1 percent
or more, further reduce employment not related to new
regulatory compliance during the first year after
implementation;
``(18) `guidance' means an agency statement of general
applicability and future effect, other than a regulatory
action, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory
or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or
regulatory issue;
``(19) `major guidance' means guidance that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs finds is likely to lead to--
``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more, adjusted annually for inflation;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, local or tribal
government agencies, or geographic regions;
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the
economy;
``(20) the `Information Quality Act' means section 515 of
Public Law 106-554, the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and guidelines
issued by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs or other agencies pursuant to the Act; and
``(21) the `Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs'
means the office established under section 3503 of chapter 35
of title 44 and any successor to that office.''.
SEC. 103. RULE MAKING.
(a) Section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(a) This section applies'' and
inserting ``(a) Applicability.--This section applies''.
(b) Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking subsections (b) through (e) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Rule Making Considerations.--In a rule making, an
agency shall make all preliminary and final factual
determinations based on evidence and consider, in addition to
other applicable considerations, the following:
``(1) The legal authority under which a rule may be
proposed, including whether a rule making is required by
statute, and if so,
[[Page H336]]
whether by a specific date, or whether the agency has
discretion to commence a rule making.
``(2) Other statutory considerations applicable to whether
the agency can or should propose a rule or undertake other
agency action.
``(3) The specific nature and significance of the problem
the agency may address with a rule (including the degree and
nature of risks the problem poses and the priority of
addressing those risks compared to other matters or
activities within the agency's jurisdiction), whether the
problem warrants new agency action, and the countervailing
risks that may be posed by alternatives for new agency
action.
``(4) Whether existing rules have created or contributed to
the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether
those rules could be amended or rescinded to address the
problem in whole or part.
``(5) Any reasonable alternatives for a new rule or other
response identified by the agency or interested persons,
including not only responses that mandate particular conduct
or manners of compliance, but also--
``(A) the alternative of no Federal response;
``(B) amending or rescinding existing rules;
``(C) potential regional, State, local, or tribal
regulatory action or other responses that could be taken in
lieu of agency action; and
``(D) potential responses that--
``(i) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or
manners of compliance;
``(ii) establish economic incentives to encourage desired
behavior;
``(iii) provide information upon which choices can be made
by the public; or
``(iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather
than agency actions that specify conduct or manners of
compliance.
``(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(A) the potential costs and benefits associated with
potential alternative rules and other responses considered
under section 553(b)(5), including direct, indirect, and
cumulative costs and benefits and estimated impacts on jobs
(including an estimate of the net gain or loss in domestic
jobs), wages, economic growth, innovation, economic
competitiveness, and impacts on low income populations;
``(B) means to increase the cost-effectiveness of any
Federal response; and
``(C) incentives for innovation, consistency,
predictability, lower costs of enforcement and compliance (to
government entities, regulated entities, and the public), and
flexibility.
``(c) Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Major
Rules, High-Impact Rules, Negative-Impact on Jobs and Wages
Rules, and Rules Involving Novel Legal or Policy Issues.--In
the case of a rule making for a major rule, a high-impact
rule, a negative-impact on jobs and wages rule, or a rule
that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of
statutory mandates, not later than 90 days before a notice of
proposed rule making is published in the Federal Register, an
agency shall publish advance notice of proposed rule making
in the Federal Register. In publishing such advance notice,
the agency shall--
``(1) include a written statement identifying, at a
minimum--
``(A) the nature and significance of the problem the agency
may address with a rule, including data and other evidence
and information on which the agency expects to rely for the
proposed rule;
``(B) the legal authority under which a rule may be
proposed, including whether a rule making is required by
statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether
the agency has discretion to commence a rule making;
``(C) preliminary information available to the agency
concerning the other considerations specified in subsection
(b);
``(D) in the case of a rule that involves a novel legal or
policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, the nature of
and potential reasons to adopt the novel legal or policy
position upon which the agency may base a proposed rule; and
``(E) an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by
which the agency will measure progress toward that objective;
``(2) solicit written data, views or argument from
interested persons concerning the information and issues
addressed in the advance notice; and
``(3) provide for a period of not fewer than 60 days for
interested persons to submit such written data, views, or
argument to the agency.
``(d) Notices of Proposed Rule Making; Determinations of
Other Agency Course.--(1) Before it determines to propose a
rule, and following completion of procedures under subsection
(c), if applicable, the agency shall consult with the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. If the agency thereafter determines to propose a
rule, the agency shall publish a notice of proposed rule
making, which shall include--
``(A) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public
rule making proceedings;
``(B) reference to the legal authority under which the rule
is proposed;
``(C) the terms of the proposed rule;
``(D) a description of information known to the agency on
the subject and issues of the proposed rule, including but
not limited to--
``(i) a summary of information known to the agency
concerning the considerations specified in subsection (b);
``(ii) a summary of additional information the agency
provided to and obtained from interested persons under
subsection (c);
``(iii) a summary of any preliminary risk assessment or
regulatory impact analysis performed by the agency; and
``(iv) information specifically identifying all data,
studies, models, and other evidence or information considered
or used by the agency in connection with its determination to
propose the rule;
``(E)(i) a reasoned preliminary determination of need for
the rule based on the information described under
subparagraph (D);
``(ii) an additional statement of whether a rule is
required by statute; and
``(iii) an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by
which the agency will measure progress toward that objective;
``(F) a reasoned preliminary determination that the
benefits of the proposed rule meet the relevant statutory
objectives and justify the costs of the proposed rule
(including all costs to be considered under subsection
(b)(6)), based on the information described under
subparagraph (D);
``(G) a discussion of--
``(i) the alternatives to the proposed rule, and other
alternative responses, considered by the agency under
subsection (b);
``(ii) the costs and benefits of those alternatives
(including all costs to be considered under subsection
(b)(6));
``(iii) whether those alternatives meet relevant statutory
objectives; and
``(iv) why the agency did not propose any of those
alternatives; and
``(H)(i) a statement of whether existing rules have created
or contributed to the problem the agency seeks to address
with the proposed rule; and
``(ii) if so, whether or not the agency proposes to amend
or rescind any such rules, and why.
All information provided to or considered by the agency, and
steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with
its determination to propose the rule, including any
preliminary risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis
prepared by the agency and all other information prepared or
described by the agency under subparagraph (D) and, at the
discretion of the President or the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, information
provided by that Office in consultations with the agency,
shall be placed in the docket for the proposed rule and made
accessible to the public by electronic means and otherwise
for the public's use when the notice of proposed rule making
is published.
``(2)(A) If the agency undertakes procedures under
subsection (c) and determines thereafter not to propose a
rule, the agency shall, following consultation with the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, publish a
notice of determination of other agency course. A notice of
determination of other agency course shall include
information required by paragraph (1)(D) to be included in a
notice of proposed rule making and a description of the
alternative response the agency determined to adopt.
``(B) If in its determination of other agency course the
agency makes a determination to amend or rescind an existing
rule, the agency need not undertake additional proceedings
under subsection (c) before it publishes a notice of proposed
rule making to amend or rescind the existing rule.
All information provided to or considered by the agency, and
steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with
its determination of other agency course, including but not
limited to any preliminary risk assessment or regulatory
impact analysis prepared by the agency and all other
information that would be required to be prepared or
described by the agency under paragraph (1)(D) if the agency
had determined to publish a notice of proposed rule making
and, at the discretion of the President or the Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
information provided by that Office in consultations with the
agency, shall be placed in the docket for the determination
and made accessible to the public by electronic means and
otherwise for the public's use when the notice of
determination is published.
``(3) After notice of proposed rule making required by this
section, the agency shall provide interested persons an
opportunity to participate in the rule making through
submission of written data, views, or arguments with or
without opportunity for oral presentation, except that--
``(A) if a hearing is required under paragraph (4)(B) or
subsection (e), opportunity for oral presentation shall be
provided pursuant to that requirement; or
``(B) when other than under subsection (e) of this section
rules are required by statute or at the discretion of the
agency to be made on the record after opportunity for an
agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 shall apply, and
paragraph (4), the requirements of subsection (e) to receive
comment outside of the procedures of sections 556 and 557,
and the petition procedures of subsection (e)(6) shall not
apply.
The agency shall provide not fewer than 60 days for
interested persons to submit written data, views, or argument
(or 120 days in the case of a proposed major or high-impact
rule).
``(4)(A) Within 30 days of publication of notice of
proposed rule making, a member of
[[Page H337]]
the public may petition for a hearing in accordance with
section 556 to determine whether any evidence or other
information upon which the agency bases the proposed rule
fails to comply with the Information Quality Act.
``(B)(i) The agency may, upon review of the petition,
determine without further process to exclude from the rule
making the evidence or other information that is the subject
of the petition and, if appropriate, withdraw the proposed
rule. The agency shall promptly publish any such
determination.
``(ii) If the agency does not resolve the petition under
the procedures of clause (i), it shall grant any such
petition that presents a prima facie case that evidence or
other information upon which the agency bases the proposed
rule fails to comply with the Information Quality Act, hold
the requested hearing not later than 30 days after receipt of
the petition, provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-
examination at the hearing, and decide the issues presented
by the petition not later than 60 days after receipt of the
petition. The agency may deny any petition that it determines
does not present such a prima facie case.
``(C) There shall be no judicial review of the agency's
disposition of issues considered and decided or determined
under subparagraph (B)(ii) until judicial review of the
agency's final action. There shall be no judicial review of
an agency's determination to withdraw a proposed rule under
subparagraph (B)(i) on the basis of the petition.
``(D) Failure to petition for a hearing under this
paragraph shall not preclude judicial review of any claim
based on the Information Quality Act under chapter 7 of this
title.
``(e) Hearings for High-Impact Rules.--Following notice of
a proposed rule making, receipt of comments on the proposed
rule, and any hearing held under subsection (d)(4), and
before adoption of any high-impact rule, the agency shall
hold a hearing in accordance with sections 556 and 557,
unless such hearing is waived by all participants in the rule
making other than the agency. The agency shall provide a
reasonable opportunity for cross-examination at such hearing.
The hearing shall be limited to the following issues of fact,
except that participants at the hearing other than the agency
may waive determination of any such issue:
``(1) Whether the agency's asserted factual predicate for
the rule is supported by the evidence.
``(2) Whether there is an alternative to the proposed rule
that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at a
lower cost (including all costs to be considered under
subsection (b)(6)) than the proposed rule.
``(3) If there is more than one alternative to the proposed
rule that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at
a lower cost than the proposed rule, which alternative would
achieve the relevant statutory objectives at the lowest cost.
``(4) Whether, if the agency proposes to adopt a rule that
is more costly than the least costly alternative that would
achieve the relevant statutory objectives (including all
costs to be considered under subsection (b)(6)), the
additional benefits of the more costly rule exceed the
additional costs of the more costly rule.
``(5) Whether the evidence and other information upon which
the agency bases the proposed rule meets the requirements of
the Information Quality Act.
``(6) Upon petition by an interested person who has
participated in the rule making, other issues relevant to the
rule making, unless the agency determines that consideration
of the issues at the hearing would not advance consideration
of the rule or would, in light of the nature of the need for
agency action, unreasonably delay completion of the rule
making. An agency shall grant or deny a petition under this
paragraph within 30 days of its receipt of the petition.
No later than 45 days before any hearing held under this
subsection or sections 556 and 557, the agency shall publish
in the Federal Register a notice specifying the proposed rule
to be considered at such hearing, the issues to be considered
at the hearing, and the time and place for such hearing,
except that such notice may be issued not later than 15 days
before a hearing held under subsection (d)(4)(B).
``(f) Final Rules.--(1) The agency shall adopt a rule only
following consultation with the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs to facilitate
compliance with applicable rule making requirements.
``(2) The agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of
the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical,
economic, and other evidence and information concerning the
need for, consequences of, and alternatives to the rule.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the agency
shall adopt the least costly rule considered during the rule
making (including all costs to be considered under subsection
(b)(6)) that meets relevant statutory objectives.
``(B) The agency may adopt a rule that is more costly than
the least costly alternative that would achieve the relevant
statutory objectives only if the additional benefits of the
more costly rule justify its additional costs and only if the
agency explains its reason for doing so based on interests of
public health, safety or welfare that are clearly within the
scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule.
``(4) When it adopts a final rule, the agency shall publish
a notice of final rule making. The notice shall include--
``(A) a concise, general statement of the rule's basis and
purpose;
``(B) the agency's reasoned final determination of need for
a rule to address the problem the agency seeks to address
with the rule, including a statement of whether a rule is
required by statute and a summary of any final risk
assessment or regulatory impact analysis prepared by the
agency;
``(C) the agency's reasoned final determination that the
benefits of the rule meet the relevant statutory objectives
and justify the rule's costs (including all costs to be
considered under subsection (b)(6));
``(D) the agency's reasoned final determination not to
adopt any of the alternatives to the proposed rule considered
by the agency during the rule making, including--
``(i) the agency's reasoned final determination that no
alternative considered achieved the relevant statutory
objectives with lower costs (including all costs to be
considered under subsection (b)(6)) than the rule; or
``(ii) the agency's reasoned determination that its
adoption of a more costly rule complies with subsection
(f)(3)(B);
``(E) the agency's reasoned final determination--
``(i) that existing rules have not created or contributed
to the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule; or
``(ii) that existing rules have created or contributed to
the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule, and,
if so--
``(I) why amendment or rescission of such existing rules is
not alone sufficient to respond to the problem; and
``(II) whether and how the agency intends to amend or
rescind the existing rule separate from adoption of the rule;
``(F) the agency's reasoned final determination that the
evidence and other information upon which the agency bases
the rule complies with the Information Quality Act;
``(G) the agency's reasoned final determination that the
rule meets the objectives that the agency identified in
subsection (d)(1)(E)(iii) or that other objectives are more
appropriate in light of the full administrative record and
the rule meets those objectives;
``(H) the agency's reasoned final determination that it did
not deviate from the metrics the agency included in
subsection (d)(1)(E)(iii) or that other metrics are more
appropriate in light of the full administrative record and
the agency did not deviate from those metrics;
``(I)(i) for any major rule, high-impact rule, or negative-
impact on jobs and wages rule, the agency's plan for review
of the rule no less than every ten years to determine
whether, based upon evidence, there remains a need for the
rule, whether the rule is in fact achieving statutory
objectives, whether the rule's benefits continue to justify
its costs, and whether the rule can be modified or rescinded
to reduce costs while continuing to achieve statutory
objectives; and
``(ii) review of a rule under a plan required by clause (i)
of this subparagraph shall take into account the factors and
criteria set forth in subsections (b) through (f) of section
553 of this title; and
``(J) for any negative-impact on jobs and wages rule, a
statement that the head of the agency that made the rule
approved the rule knowing about the findings and
determination of the agency or the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that qualified
the rule as a negative impact on jobs and wages rule.
All information considered by the agency in connection with
its adoption of the rule, and, at the discretion of the
President or the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, information provided by that Office
in consultations with the agency, shall be placed in the
docket for the rule and made accessible to the public for the
public's use no later than when the rule is adopted.
``(g) Exceptions From Notice and Hearing Requirements.--(1)
Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, the
following do not apply to interpretive rules, general
statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice:
``(A) Subsections (c) through (e).
``(B) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (f).
``(C) Subparagraphs (B) through (H) of subsection (f)(4).
``(2)(A) When the agency for good cause, based upon
evidence, finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that
compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or requirements
to render final determinations under subsection (f) of this
section before the issuance of an interim rule is
impracticable or contrary to the public interest, including
interests of national security, such subsections or
requirements to render final determinations shall not apply
to the agency's adoption of an interim rule.
``(B) If, following compliance with subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph, the agency adopts an interim rule, it shall
commence proceedings that comply fully with subsections (d)
through (f) of this section immediately upon publication of
the interim rule, shall treat the publication of the interim
rule as publication of a notice of proposed rule making and
shall not be required to issue supplemental notice other than
to complete full compliance with subsection (d). No less than
270 days from publication of the interim rule (or 18 months
in the case of a
[[Page H338]]
major rule or high-impact rule), the agency shall complete
rule making under subsections (d) through (f) of this
subsection and take final action to adopt a final rule or
rescind the interim rule. If the agency fails to take timely
final action, the interim rule will cease to have the effect
of law.
``(C) Other than in cases involving interests of national
security, upon the agency's publication of an interim rule
without compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or
requirements to render final determinations under subsection
(f) of this section, an interested party may seek immediate
judicial review under chapter 7 of this title of the agency's
determination to adopt such interim rule. The record on such
review shall include all documents and information considered
by the agency and any additional information presented by a
party that the court determines necessary to consider to
assure justice.
``(3) When the agency for good cause finds (and
incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public
procedure thereon are unnecessary, including because agency
rule making is undertaken only to correct a de minimis
technical or clerical error in a previously issued rule or
for other noncontroversial purposes, the agency may publish a
rule without compliance with subsection (c), (d), (e), or
(f)(1)-(3) and (f)(4)(B)-(F). If the agency receives
significant adverse comment within 60 days after publication
of the rule, it shall treat the notice of the rule as a
notice of proposed rule making and complete rule making in
compliance with subsections (d) and (f).
``(h) Additional Requirements for Hearings.--When a hearing
is required under subsection (e) or is otherwise required by
statute or at the agency's discretion before adoption of a
rule, the agency shall comply with the requirements of
sections 556 and 557 in addition to the requirements of
subsection (f) in adopting the rule and in providing notice
of the rule's adoption.
``(i) Date of Publication of Rule.--The required
publication or service of a substantive final or interim rule
shall be made not less than 30 days before the effective date
of the rule, except--
``(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction;
``(2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or
``(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause
found and published with the rule.
``(j) Right To Petition.--Each agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule.
``(k) Rule Making Guidelines.--(1)(A) The Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall
establish guidelines for the assessment, including
quantitative and qualitative assessment, of the costs and
benefits of proposed and final rules and other economic
issues or issues related to risk that are relevant to rule
making under this title. The rigor of cost-benefit analysis
required by such guidelines shall be commensurate, in the
Administrator's determination, with the economic impact of
the rule.
``(B) To ensure that agencies use the best available
techniques to quantify and evaluate anticipated present and
future benefits, costs, other economic issues, and risks as
accurately as possible, the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall regularly update
guidelines established under paragraph (1)(A) of this
subsection.
``(2) The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs shall also issue guidelines to promote
coordination, simplification and harmonization of agency
rules during the rule making process and otherwise. Such
guidelines shall assure that each agency avoids regulations
that are inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative
of, its other regulations and those of other Federal agencies
and drafts its regulations to be simple and easy to
understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for
uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.
``(3) To ensure consistency in Federal rule making, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs shall--
``(A) issue guidelines and otherwise take action to ensure
that rule makings conducted in whole or in part under
procedures specified in provisions of law other than those of
subchapter II of this title conform to the fullest extent
allowed by law with the procedures set forth in section 553
of this title; and
``(B) issue guidelines for the conduct of hearings under
subsections 553(d)(4) and 553(e) of this section, including
to assure a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination.
Each agency shall adopt regulations for the conduct of
hearings consistent with the guidelines issued under this
subparagraph.
``(4) The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs shall issue guidelines pursuant to the
Information Quality Act to apply in rule making proceedings
under sections 553, 556, and 557 of this title. In all cases,
such guidelines, and the Administrator's specific
determinations regarding agency compliance with such
guidelines, shall be entitled to judicial deference.
``(l) Inclusion in the Record of Certain Documents and
Information.--The agency shall include in the record for a
rule making, and shall make available by electronic means and
otherwise, all documents and information prepared or
considered by the agency during the proceeding, including, at
the discretion of the President or the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, documents and
information communicated by that Office during consultation
with the Agency.
``(m) Monetary Policy Exemption.--Nothing in subsection
(b)(6), subparagraphs (F) and (G) of subsection (d)(1),
subsection (e), subsection (f)(3), and subparagraphs (C) and
(D) of subsection (f)(5) shall apply to rule makings that
concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal
Open Market Committee.''.
SEC. 104. AGENCY GUIDANCE; PROCEDURES TO ISSUE MAJOR
GUIDANCE; PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
GUIDELINES FOR ISSUANCE OF GUIDANCE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 553 the following new
section:
``Sec. 553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major
guidance; authority to issue guidelines for issuance of
guidance
``(a) Before issuing any major guidance, or guidance that
involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of
statutory mandates, an agency shall--
``(1) make and document a reasoned determination that--
``(A) assures that such guidance is understandable and
complies with relevant statutory objectives and regulatory
provisions (including any statutory deadlines for agency
action);
``(B) summarizes the evidence and data on which the agency
will base the guidance;
``(C) identifies the costs and benefits (including all
costs to be considered during a rule making under section
553(b) of this title) of conduct conforming to such guidance
and assures that such benefits justify such costs; and
``(D) describes alternatives to such guidance and their
costs and benefits (including all costs to be considered
during a rule making under section 553(b) of this title) and
explains why the agency rejected those alternatives; and
``(2) confer with the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs on the issuance of such
guidance to assure that the guidance is reasonable,
understandable, consistent with relevant statutory and
regulatory provisions and requirements or practices of other
agencies, does not produce costs that are unjustified by the
guidance's benefits, and is otherwise appropriate.
Upon issuing major guidance, or guidance that involves a
novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory
mandates, the agency shall publish the documentation required
by subparagraph (1) by electronic means and otherwise.
``(b) Agency guidance--
``(1) is not legally binding and may not be relied upon by
an agency as legal grounds for agency action;
``(2) shall state in a plain, prominent and permanent
manner that it is not legally binding; and
``(3) shall, at the time it is issued or upon request, be
made available by the issuing agency to interested persons
and the public by electronic means and otherwise.
Agencies shall avoid the issuance of guidance that is
inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative of, the
agency's governing statutes or regulations, with the goal of
minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation
arising from such uncertainty.
``(c) The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs shall have authority to issue guidelines
for use by the agencies in the issuance of major guidance and
other guidance. Such guidelines shall assure that each agency
avoids issuing guidance documents that are inconsistent or
incompatible with, or duplicative of, the law, its other
regulations, or the regulations of other Federal agencies and
drafts its guidance documents to be simple and easy to
understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for
uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 553 the following new
item:
``553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major guidance; authority
to issue guidelines for issuance of guidance.''.
SEC. 105. HEARINGS; PRESIDING EMPLOYEES; POWERS AND DUTIES;
BURDEN OF PROOF; EVIDENCE; RECORD AS BASIS OF
DECISION.
Section 556 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e)(1) The transcript of testimony and exhibits, together
with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding,
constitutes the exclusive record for decision in accordance
with section 557 and shall be made available to the parties
and the public by electronic means and, upon payment of
lawfully prescribed costs, otherwise. When an agency decision
rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in
the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely
request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, in
a proceeding held under this section pursuant to section
553(d)(4) or 553(e), the record for decision shall also
include any
[[Page H339]]
information that is part of the record of proceedings under
section 553.
``(f) When an agency conducts rule making under this
section and section 557 directly after concluding proceedings
upon an advance notice of proposed rule making under section
553(c), the matters to be considered and determinations to be
made shall include, among other relevant matters and
determinations, the matters and determinations described in
subsections (b) and (f) of section 553.
``(g) Upon receipt of a petition for a hearing under this
section, the agency shall grant the petition in the case of
any major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that
a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or
would, in light of the need for agency action, unreasonably
delay completion of the rule making. The agency shall publish
its decision to grant or deny the petition when it renders
the decision, including an explanation of the grounds for
decision. The information contained in the petition shall in
all cases be included in the administrative record. This
subsection shall not apply to rule makings that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.''.
SEC. 106. ACTIONS REVIEWABLE.
Section 704 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Agency action made'' and inserting ``(a)
Agency action made''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Denial by an
agency of a correction request or, where administrative
appeal is provided for, denial of an appeal, under an
administrative mechanism described in subsection (b)(2)(B) of
the Information Quality Act, or the failure of an agency
within 90 days to grant or deny such request or appeal, shall
be final action for purposes of this section.
``(b) Other than in cases involving interests of national
security, notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section,
upon the agency's publication of an interim rule without
compliance with section 553(c), (d), or (e) or requirements
to render final determinations under subsection (f) of
section 553, an interested party may seek immediate judicial
review under this chapter of the agency's determination to
adopt such rule on an interim basis. Review shall be limited
to whether the agency abused its discretion to adopt the
interim rule without compliance with section 553(c), (d), or
(e) or without rendering final determinations under
subsection (f) of section 553.''.
SEC. 107. SCOPE OF REVIEW.
Section 706 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting
``(a) To the extent necessary'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A) of subsection (b) (as designated by
section 202 of this Act), by inserting after ``in accordance
with law'' the following: ``(including the Information
Quality Act)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) The court shall not defer to the agency's--
``(1) determination of the costs and benefits or other
economic or risk assessment of the action, if the agency
failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and
assessments established by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs under section 553(k);
``(2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim
rule; or
``(3) guidance.
``(d) The court shall review agency denials of petitions
under section 553(e)(6) or any other petition for a hearing
under sections 556 and 557 for abuse of agency discretion.''.
SEC. 108. ADDED DEFINITION.
Section 701(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end,
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) `substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole,
taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts
from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to
support its decision.''.
SEC. 109. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title to--
(1) sections 553, 556, and 704 of title 5, United States
Code;
(2) subsection (b) of section 701 of such title;
(3) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 706(c) of such title;
and
(4) subsection (d) of section 706 of such title,
shall not apply to any rule makings pending or completed on
the date of enactment of this title.
TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Separation of Powers
Restoration Act''.
SEC. 202. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY
INTERPRETATIONS.
Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this Act, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a) (as designated by section 107 of this
Act)--
(A) by striking ``decide all relevant questions of law,
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and''; and
(B) by inserting after ``of the terms of an agency action''
the following ``and decide de novo all relevant questions of
law, including the interpretation of constitutional and
statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection
shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency
action authorized under any provision of law. No law may
exempt any such civil action from the application of this
section except by specific reference to this section''; and
(2) by striking ``The reviewing court shall--'' and
inserting the following:
``(b) The reviewing court shall--''.
TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act''.
SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Rule.--The term `rule' has the meaning given such
term in section 551(4) of this title, except that such term
does not include--
``(A) a rule pertaining to the protection of the rights of
and benefits for veterans or part 232 of title 32 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (as in effect on July 1, 2014) or any
successor provisions thereto; or
``(B) a rule of particular (and not general) applicability
relating to rates, wages, corporate or financial structures
or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances,
services, or allowances therefor or to valuations, costs or
accounting, or practices relating to such rates, wages,
structures, prices, appliances, services, or allowances.''.
(b) Inclusion of Rules With Indirect Effects.--Section 601
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Economic impact.--The term `economic impact' means,
with respect to a proposed or final rule--
``(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such
rule; and
``(B) any indirect economic effect (including compliance
costs and effects on revenue) on small entities which is
reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without
regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated
by the rule).''.
(c) Inclusion of Rules With Beneficial Effects.--
(1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection
(c) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking the first sentence and inserting ``Each initial
regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a detailed
description of alternatives to the proposed rule which
minimize any adverse significant economic impact or maximize
any beneficial significant economic impact on small
entities.''.
(2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--The first
paragraph (6) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``minimize the significant
economic impact'' and inserting ``minimize the adverse
significant economic impact or maximize the beneficial
significant economic impact''.
(d) Inclusion of Rules Affecting Tribal Organizations.--
Paragraph (5) of section 601 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting ``and tribal organizations (as
defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))),'' after
``special districts,''.
(e) Inclusion of Land Management Plans and Formal
Rulemaking.--
(1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection
(a) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rule,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or publishes a revision or amendment to
a land management plan,'' after ``United States,''.
(2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection (a)
of section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended in
the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rulemaking,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or adopts a revision or amendment to a
land management plan,'' after ``section 603(a),''.
(3) Land management plan defined.--Section 601 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(10) Land management plan.--
``(A) In general.--The term `land management plan' means--
``(i) any plan developed by the Secretary of Agriculture
under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); and
``(ii) any plan developed by the Secretary of the Interior
under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).
``(B) Revision.--The term `revision' means any change to a
land management plan which--
``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604(f)(5)); or
``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), is made under section
[[Page H340]]
1610.5-6 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or any
successor regulation).
``(C) Amendment.--The term `amendment' means any change to
a land management plan which--
``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(4) of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604(f)(4)) and with respect to which the Secretary of
Agriculture prepares a statement described in section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)); or
``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-5 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) and with
respect to which the Secretary of the Interior prepares a
statement described in section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).''.
(f) Inclusion of Certain Interpretive Rules Involving the
Internal Revenue Laws.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 603 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``or a recordkeeping requirement, and
without regard to whether such requirement is imposed by
statute or regulation.''.
(2) Collection of information.--Paragraph (7) of section
601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(7) Collection of information.--The term `collection of
information' has the meaning given such term in section
3502(3) of title 44.''.
(3) Recordkeeping requirement.--Paragraph (8) of section
601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(8) Recordkeeping requirement.--The term `recordkeeping
requirement' has the meaning given such term in section
3502(13) of title 44.''.
(g) Definition of Small Organization.--Paragraph (4) of
section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Small organization.--
``(A) In general.--The term `small organization' means any
not-for-profit enterprise which, as of the issuance of the
notice of proposed rulemaking--
``(i) in the case of an enterprise which is described by a
classification code of the North American Industrial
Classification System, does not exceed the size standard
established by the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for small business concerns described by
such classification code; and
``(ii) in the case of any other enterprise, has a net worth
that does not exceed $7 million and has not more than 500
employees.
``(B) Local labor organizations.--In the case of any local
labor organization, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without
regard to any national or international organization of which
such local labor organization is a part.
``(C) Agency definitions.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall
not apply to the extent that an agency, after consultation
with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
establishes one or more definitions for such term which are
appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes
such definitions in the Federal Register.''.
SEC. 303. EXPANSION OF REPORT OF REGULATORY AGENDA.
Section 602 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, and'' at the end and
inserting ``;'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) a brief description of the sector of the North
American Industrial Classification System that is primarily
affected by any rule which the agency expects to propose or
promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and''; and
(2) in subsection (c), to read as follows:
``(c) Each agency shall prominently display a plain
language summary of the information contained in the
regulatory flexibility agenda published under subsection (a)
on its website within 3 days of its publication in the
Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration shall compile and prominently display
a plain language summary of the regulatory agendas referenced
in subsection (a) for each agency on its website within 3
days of their publication in the Federal Register.''.
SEC. 304. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.
(a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Subsection
(b) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required
under this section shall contain a detailed statement--
``(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered;
``(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
``(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply;
``(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule,
including an estimate of the classes of small entities which
will be subject to the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
and record;
``(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or
the reasons why such a description could not be provided;
``(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact
of the proposed rule on small entities beyond that already
imposed on the class of small entities by the agency or why
such an estimate is not available;
``(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on
small entities or a specific class of small entities; and
``(8) describing any impairment of the ability of small
entities to have access to credit.''.
(b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
(1) In general.--Section 604(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an explanation'' and
inserting ``a detailed explanation'';
(B) in each of paragraphs (4), (5), and the first paragraph
(6), by inserting ``detailed'' before ``description'';
(C) in the first paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' at
the end;
(D) in the second paragraph (6), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and'';
(E) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph
(7); and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) a detailed description of any disproportionate
economic impact on small entities or a specific class of
small entities.''.
(2) Inclusion of response to comments on certification of
proposed rule.--Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(or
certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b))''
after ``initial regulatory flexibility analysis''.
(3) Publication of analysis on website.--Subsection (b) of
section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory
flexibility analysis available to the public, including
placement of the entire analysis on the agency's website, and
shall publish in the Federal Register the final regulatory
flexibility analysis, or a summary thereof which includes the
telephone number, mailing address, and link to the website
where the complete analysis may be obtained.''.
(c) Cross-References to Other Analyses.--Subsection (a) of
section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) A Federal agency shall be treated as satisfying any
requirement regarding the content of an agenda or regulatory
flexibility analysis under section 602, 603, or 604, if such
agency provides in such agenda or analysis a cross-reference
to the specific portion of another agenda or analysis which
is required by any other law and which satisfies such
requirement.''.
(d) Certifications.--Subsection (b) of section 605 of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``detailed'' before ``statement'' the
first place it appears; and
(2) by inserting ``and legal'' after ``factual''.
(e) Quantification Requirements.--Section 607 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 607. Quantification requirements
``In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall
provide--
``(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the
effects of the proposed or final rule and alternatives to the
proposed or final rule; or
``(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed
statement explaining why quantification is not practicable or
reliable.''.
SEC. 305. REPEAL OF WAIVER AND DELAY AUTHORITY; ADDITIONAL
POWERS OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.
(a) In General.--Section 608 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy
``(a)(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration shall, after opportunity
for notice and comment under section 553, issue rules
governing agency compliance with this chapter. The Chief
Counsel may modify or amend such rules after notice and
comment under section 553. This chapter (other than this
subsection) shall not apply with respect to the issuance,
modification, and amendment of rules under this paragraph.
``(2) An agency shall not issue rules which supplement the
rules issued under subsection (a) unless such agency has
first consulted with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to ensure
that such supplemental rules comply with this chapter and the
rules issued under paragraph (1).
``(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may intervene
in any agency adjudication (unless such agency is authorized
to impose a fine or penalty under such adjudication), and may
inform the agency of the impact that any decision on the
record may have on small entities. The Chief Counsel shall
not initiate an appeal with respect to any adjudication in
[[Page H341]]
which the Chief Counsel intervenes under this subsection.
``(c) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy may file comments in
response to any agency notice requesting comment, regardless
of whether the agency is required to file a general notice of
proposed rulemaking under section 553.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 611(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking
``608(b),''.
(2) Section 611(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking
``608(b),''.
(3) Section 611(a)(3) of such title is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(B) by striking ``(3)(A) A small entity'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) A small entity''.
SEC. 306. PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING COMMENTS.
Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (b) and all that follows through the end
of the section and inserting the following:
``(b)(1) Prior to publication of any proposed rule
described in subsection (e), an agency making such rule shall
notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and provide the Chief Counsel with--
``(A) all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in
making the proposed rule, including the draft of the proposed
rule; and
``(B) information on the potential adverse and beneficial
economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
the type of small entities that might be affected.
``(2) An agency shall not be required under paragraph (1)
to provide the exact language of any draft if the rule--
``(A) relates to the internal revenue laws of the United
States; or
``(B) is proposed by an independent regulatory agency (as
defined in section 3502(5) of title 44).
``(c) Not later than 15 days after the receipt of such
materials and information under subsection (b), the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
shall--
``(1) identify small entities or representatives of small
entities or a combination of both for the purpose of
obtaining advice, input, and recommendations from those
persons about the potential economic impacts of the proposed
rule and the compliance of the agency with section 603; and
``(2) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,
an employee from the agency making the rule, and in the case
of an agency other than an independent regulatory agency (as
defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), an employee from the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget to review the materials and information
provided to the Chief Counsel under subsection (b).
``(d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the review panel
described in subsection (c)(2) is convened, the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall,
after consultation with the members of such panel, submit a
report to the agency and, in the case of an agency other than
an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section
3502(5) of title 44), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(2) Such report shall include an assessment of the
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities,
including an assessment of the proposed rule's impact on the
cost that small entities pay for energy, an assessment of the
proposed rule's impact on startup costs for small entities,
and a discussion of any alternatives that will minimize
adverse significant economic impacts or maximize beneficial
significant economic impacts on small entities.
``(3) Such report shall become part of the rulemaking
record. In the publication of the proposed rule, the agency
shall explain what actions, if any, the agency took in
response to such report.
``(e) A proposed rule is described by this subsection if
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of
the agency (or the delegatee of the head of the agency), or
an independent regulatory agency determines that the proposed
rule is likely to result in--
``(1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more;
``(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local governments,
tribal organizations, or geographic regions;
``(3) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
``(4) a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
``(f) Upon application by the agency, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may waive the
requirements of subsections (b) through (e) if the Chief
Counsel determines that compliance with the requirements of
such subsections are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.
``(g) A small entity or a representative of a small entity
may submit a request that the agency provide a copy of the
report prepared under subsection (d) and all materials and
information provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration under subsection (b). The
agency receiving such request shall provide the report,
materials and information to the requesting small entity or
representative of a small entity not later than 10 business
days after receiving such request, except that the agency
shall not disclose any information that is prohibited from
disclosure to the public pursuant to section 552(b) of this
title.''.
SEC. 307. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.
Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules
``(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
section, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register
and place on its website a plan for the periodic review of
rules issued by the agency which the head of the agency
determines have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Such determination
shall be made without regard to whether the agency performed
an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the review
shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued
without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to
minimize any adverse significant economic impacts or maximize
any beneficial significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the
agency at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal
Register and subsequently placing the amended plan on the
agency's website.
``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such
agency rules existing on the date of the enactment of this
section within 10 years of the date of publication of the
plan in the Federal Register and for review of rules adopted
after the date of enactment of this section within 10 years
after the publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. If the head of the agency determines that
completion of the review of existing rules is not feasible by
the established date, the head of the agency shall so certify
in a statement published in the Federal Register and may
extend the review for not longer than 2 years after
publication of notice of extension in the Federal Register.
Such certification and notice shall be sent to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
the Congress.
``(c) The plan shall include a section that details how an
agency will conduct outreach to and meaningfully include
small businesses (including small business concerns owned and
controlled by women, small business concerns owned and
controlled by veterans, and small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals (as such terms are defined in the Small Business
Act)) for the purposes of carrying out this section. The
agency shall include in this section a plan for how the
agency will contact small businesses and gather their input
on existing agency rules.
``(d) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding
the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the
Congress, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, and, in the case of agencies other
than independent regulatory agencies (as defined in section
3502(5) of title 44) to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget. Such report shall include the
identification of any rule with respect to which the head of
the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or
(6) of subsection (e) and a detailed explanation of the
reasons for such determination.
``(e) In reviewing a rule pursuant to subsections (a)
through (d), the agency shall amend or rescind the rule to
minimize any adverse significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities or disproportionate
economic impact on a specific class of small entities, or
maximize any beneficial significant economic impact of the
rule on a substantial number of small entities to the
greatest extent possible, consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes. In amending or rescinding
the rule, the agency shall consider the following factors:
``(1) The continued need for the rule.
``(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from
small entities concerning the rule.
``(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
``(4) The complexity of the rule.
``(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of
the agency determines it to be infeasible, State,
territorial, and local rules.
``(6) The contribution of the rule to the cumulative
economic impact of all Federal rules on the class of small
entities affected by the rule, unless the head of the agency
determines that such calculations cannot be made and reports
that determination in the annual report required under
subsection (d).
``(7) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated
or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
``(f) Each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal
Register and on its website a list of rules to be reviewed
pursuant to such plan. The agency shall include in the
publication a solicitation of public comments on
[[Page H342]]
any further inclusions or exclusions of rules from the list,
and shall respond to such comments. Such publication shall
include a brief description of the rule, the reason why the
agency determined that it has a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities (without regard to
whether it had prepared a final regulatory flexibility
analysis for the rule), and request comments from the public,
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
concerning the enforcement of the rule.''.
SEC. 308. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT AVAILABLE
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 611(a) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``final agency
action'' and inserting ``such rule''.
(b) Jurisdiction.--Paragraph (2) of such section is amended
by inserting ``(or which would have such jurisdiction if
publication of the final rule constituted final agency
action)'' after ``provision of law,''.
(c) Time for Bringing Action.--Paragraph (3) of such
section is amended--
(1) by striking ``final agency action'' and inserting
``publication of the final rule''; and
(2) by inserting ``, in the case of a rule for which the
date of final agency action is the same date as the
publication of the final rule,'' after ``except that''.
(d) Intervention by Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--Subsection
(b) of section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting before the first period ``or agency compliance
with section 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, or 610''.
SEC. 309. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS OVER RULES
IMPLEMENTING THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 2342 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) all final rules under section 608(a) of title 5.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section 2341
of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, when the final rule is under section 608(a)
of title 5.''.
(c) Authorization To Intervene and Comment on Agency
Compliance With Administrative Procedure.--Subsection (b) of
section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``chapter 5, and chapter 7,'' after ``this
chapter,''.
SEC. 310. ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL OF SMALL BUSINESS
CONCERN SIZE STANDARDS BY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR
ADVOCACY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 3(a)(2) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(A)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(A) In general.--In addition to the criteria specified in
paragraph (1)--
``(i) the Administrator may specify detailed definitions or
standards by which a business concern may be determined to be
a small business concern for purposes of this Act or the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958; and
``(ii) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy may specify such
definitions or standards for purposes of any other Act.''.
(b) Approval by Chief Counsel.--Clause (iii) of section
3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(a)(2)(C)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) except in the case of a size standard prescribed by
the Administrator, is approved by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.''.
(c) Industry Variation.--Paragraph (3) of section 3(a) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or Chief Counsel for Advocacy, as
appropriate'' before ``shall ensure''; and
(2) by inserting ``or Chief Counsel for Advocacy'' before
the period at the end.
(d) Judicial Review of Size Standards Approved by Chief
Counsel.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(9) Judicial review of standards approved by chief
counsel.--In the case of an action for judicial review of a
rule which includes a definition or standard approved by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy under this subsection, the party
seeking such review shall be entitled to join the Chief
Counsel as a party in such action.''.
SEC. 311. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 601 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(B) by striking ``(1) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Agency.--The term'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(B) by striking ``(3) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Small business.--The term'';
(3) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(B) by striking ``(5) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(5) Small governmental jurisdiction.--The term''; and
(4) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(B) by striking ``(6) the term'' and inserting the
following:
``(6) Small entity.--The term''.
(b) Incorporations by Reference and Certifications.--The
heading of section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications''.
(c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 6
of title 5, United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) By striking the item relating to section 605 and
inserting the following new item:
``605. Incorporations by reference and certifications.''.
(2) By striking the item relating to section 607 and
inserting the following new item:
``607. Quantification requirements.''.
(3) By striking the item relating to section 608 and
inserting the following:
``608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy.''.
(d) Other Clerical Amendments to Chapter 6.--Chapter 6 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended in section 603(d)--
(1) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by striking ``(1) For a covered agency,'' and inserting
``For a covered agency,'';
(3) by striking ``(A) any'' and inserting ``(1) any'';
(4) by striking ``(B) any'' and inserting ``(2) any''; and
(5) by striking ``(C) advice'' and inserting ``(3)
advice''.
SEC. 312. AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.
Section 212(a)(5) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended to read
as follows:
``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in
its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter
of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure
that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language
likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies
may prepare separate guides covering groups or classes of
similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with
associations of small entities to distribute such guides. In
developing guides, agencies shall solicit input from affected
small entities or associations of affected small entities. An
agency may prepare guides and apply this section with respect
to a rule or a group of related rules.''.
SEC. 313. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
title, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
complete and publish a study that examines whether the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has
the capacity and resources to carry out the duties of the
Chief Counsel under this title and the amendments made by
this title.
TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS
ACT
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Require Evaluation before
Implementing Executive Wishlists Act'' or as the ``REVIEW
Act''.
SEC. 402. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW.
Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``When'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--When''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) High-Impact Rules.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `Administrator' means the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the
Office of Management and Budget; and
``(B) the term `high-impact rule' means any rule that the
Administrator determines may impose an annual cost on the
economy of not less than $1,000,000,000.
``(2) Identification.--A final rule may not be published or
take effect until the agency making the rule submits the rule
to the Administrator and the Administrator makes a
determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule,
which shall be published by the agency with the final rule.
``(3) Relief.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an agency shall postpone the effective date of a high-impact
rule of the agency until the final disposition of all actions
seeking judicial review of the rule.
``(B) Failure to timely seek judicial review.--
Notwithstanding section 553(i), if no person seeks judicial
review of a high-impact rule--
``(i) during any period explicitly provided for judicial
review under the statute authorizing the making of the rule;
or
``(ii) if no such period is explicitly provided for, during
the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the high-
impact rule is published in the Federal Register,
[[Page H343]]
the high-impact rule may take effect as early as the date on
which the applicable period ends.
``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to impose any limitation under law on any court
against the issuance of any order enjoining the
implementation of any rule.''.
TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``All Economic Regulations
are Transparent Act'' or the ``ALERT Act''.
SEC. 502. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES.
(a) Amendment.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after chapter 6, the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 6A--OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PUBLICATION
OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES
``Sec. 651. Agency monthly submission to office of information and
regulatory affairs.
``Sec. 652. Office of information and regulatory affairs publications.
``Sec. 653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific monthly
publication.
``Sec. 654. Definitions.
``SEC. 651. AGENCY MONTHLY SUBMISSION TO OFFICE OF
INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
``On a monthly basis, the head of each agency shall submit
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (referred to in this chapter as the
`Administrator'), in such a manner as the Administrator may
reasonably require, the following information:
``(1) For each rule that the agency expects to propose or
finalize during the 12-month period following the month
covered by the monthly submission:
``(A) A summary of the nature of the rule, including the
regulation identifier number and the docket number for the
rule.
``(B) The objectives of and legal basis for the issuance of
the rule, including--
``(i) any statutory or judicial deadline; and
``(ii) whether the legal basis restricts or precludes the
agency from conducting an analysis of the costs or benefits
of the rule during the rule making, and if not, whether the
agency plans to conduct an analysis of the costs or benefits
of the rule during the rule making.
``(C) Whether the agency plans to claim an exemption from
the requirements of section 553 pursuant to section
553(g)(2)(A).
``(D) The stage of the rule making as of the date of
submission.
``(E) Whether the rule is subject to review under section
610.
``(2) For any rule for which the agency expects to finalize
during the 12-month period following the month covered by the
monthly submission and has issued a general notice of
proposed rule making--
``(A) an approximate schedule for completing action on the
rule;
``(B) an estimate of whether the rule will cost--
``(i) less than $50,000,000;
``(ii) $50,000,000 or more but less than $100,000,000;
``(iii) $100,000,000 or more but less than $500,000,000;
``(iv) $500,000,000 or more but less than $1,000,000,000;
``(v) $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000,000;
``(vi) $5,000,000,000 or more but less than
$10,000,000,000; or
``(vii) $10,000,000,000 or more; and
``(C) any estimate of the economic effects of the rule,
including the imposition of unfunded mandates and any
estimate of the net effect that the rule will have on the
number of jobs in the United States, that was considered in
drafting the rule, or, if no such estimate is available, a
statement affirming that no information on the economic
effects, including the effect on the number of jobs, of the
rule has been considered.
``SEC. 652. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
PUBLICATIONS.
``(a) Agency-Specific Information Published Monthly.--Not
later than 30 days after the submission of information
pursuant to section 651, the Administrator shall make such
information publicly available on the Internet.
``(b) Cumulative Assessment of Agency Rule Making Published
Annually.--
``(1) Publication in the federal register.--Not later than
October 1 of each year, the Administrator shall publish in
the Federal Register the following, with respect to the
previous year:
``(A) The information that the Administrator received from
the head of each agency under section 651.
``(B) The number of rules and a list of each such rule--
``(i) that was proposed by each agency, including, for each
such rule, an indication of whether the issuing agency
conducted an analysis of the costs or benefits of the rule;
and
``(ii) that was finalized by each agency, including for
each such rule an indication of whether--
``(I) the issuing agency conducted an analysis of the costs
or benefits of the rule;
``(II) the agency claimed an exemption from the procedures
under section 553 pursuant to section 553(g)(2)(A); and
``(III) the rule was issued pursuant to a statutory mandate
or the rule making is committed to agency discretion by law.
``(C) The number of agency actions and a list of each such
action taken by each agency that--
``(i) repealed a rule;
``(ii) reduced the scope of a rule;
``(iii) reduced the cost of a rule; or
``(iv) accelerated the expiration date of a rule.
``(D) The total cost (without reducing the cost by any
offsetting benefits) of all rules proposed or finalized, the
total cost of any unfunded mandates imposed by all such
rules, and the number of rules for which an estimate of the
cost of the rule was not available.
``(2) Publication on the internet.--Not later than October
1 of each year, the Administrator shall make publicly
available on the Internet the following:
``(A) The analysis of the costs or benefits, if conducted,
for each proposed rule or final rule issued by an agency for
the previous year.
``(B) The docket number and regulation identifier number
for each proposed or final rule issued by an agency for the
previous year.
``(C) The number of rules and a list of each such rule
reviewed by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget for the previous year, and the authority under which
each such review was conducted.
``(D) The number of rules and a list of each such rule for
which the head of an agency completed a review under section
610 for the previous year.
``(E) The number of rules and a list of each such rule
submitted to the Comptroller General under section 801.
``(F) The number of rules and a list of each such rule for
which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in either
the House of Representatives or the Senate under section 802.
``SEC. 653. REQUIREMENT FOR RULES TO APPEAR IN AGENCY-
SPECIFIC MONTHLY PUBLICATION.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a rule may
not take effect until the information required to be made
publicly available on the Internet regarding such rule
pursuant to section 652(a) has been so available for not less
than 6 months.
``(b) Exceptions.--The requirement of subsection (a) shall
not apply in the case of a rule--
``(1) for which the agency issuing the rule claims an
exception under section 553(g)(2)(A); or
``(2) which the President determines by Executive order
should take effect because the rule is--
``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
``(C) necessary for national security; or
``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
``SEC. 654. DEFINITIONS.
``In this chapter, the terms `agency', `agency action',
`rule', and `rule making' have the meanings given those terms
in section 551, and the term `unfunded mandate' has the
meaning given the term `Federal mandate' in section 421(6) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(6)).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
chapters for part I of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 5,
the following:
``6. The Analysis of Regulatory Functions.....................601 ....
``6A. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Publication of
Information Relating to Rules............................651''.....
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Agency monthly submission to the office of information
and regulatory affairs.--The first submission required
pursuant to section 651 of title 5, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), shall be submitted not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this title, and
monthly thereafter.
(2) Cumulative assessment of agency rule making.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 652 of title 5,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take
effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this title.
(B) Deadline.--The first requirement to publish or make
available, as the case may be, under subsection (b) of
section 652 of title 5, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), shall be the first October 1 after the
effective date of such subsection.
(C) First publication.--The requirement under section
652(b)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), shall include for the first publication, any
analysis of the costs or benefits conducted for a proposed or
final rule, for the 10 years before the date of the enactment
of this title.
(3) Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific
monthly publication.--Section 653 of title 5, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the
date that is 8 months after the date of the enactment of this
title.
TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Providing Accountability
Through Transparency Act''.
[[Page H344]]
SEC. 602. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO
REGULATIONS.GOV.
Section 553(d)(1) of title 5, United States Code, as
inserted by section 103(b) of this Act, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (G)(iv) by striking ``; and'' and
inserting ``;'';
(2) in subparagraph (H)(ii), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
``(I) the internet address of a summary of not more than
100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language,
that shall be posted on the internet website under section
206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note)
(commonly known as regulations.gov).''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in part A of House Report 115-2. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 39, line 3, insert after ``made by agencies.'' the
following: ``If the reviewing court determines that a
statutory or regulatory provision relevant to its decision
contains a gap or ambiguity, the court shall not interpret
that gap or ambiguity as an implicit delegation to the agency
of legislative rule making authority and shall not rely on
such gap or ambiguity as a justification either for
interpreting agency authority expansively or for deferring to
the agency's interpretation on the question of law.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if Congress is effectively to rein in
the runaway administrative state, a crucial part of the plan must be to
overturn, legislatively, the doctrines of judicial deference to
agencies' interpretations of the statutes and regulations they
administer. These doctrines, founded in the Supreme Court's decision in
Chevron v. NRDC and Auer v. Robbins, have, over the years, turned the
courts far too much into a rubberstamp rather than a vigorous check on
the self-serving tendencies of agencies to interpret the law to expand
their own power.
Title II of the bill, the Separation of Powers Act, delivers this
legislative reversal of Chevron and Auer. There is one thing, though,
that still needs to be added to that portion of the bill; that is
language to check the potential that once they are restored--the full
interpretive powers that rightfully belong to them--our Article III
courts will not engage in judicial activism.
To put a point on it, judges must not be allowed to use the
Separation of Powers Act as a license to interpret ambiguous statutes
always to expand agency power. My amendment, therefore, succinctly but
powerfully provides just that. It prohibits courts from reading
ambiguities in statutes to contain implicit delegation of legislative
rulemaking authority to agencies or from reading those ambiguities
expansively to extend agency power.
Although it failed in its task, the Chevron doctrine was originally
crafted to help check that kind of judicial activism. As we end the
failed Chevron experiment, we should make sure we do not go back to
judicial activism. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, to say that this amendment stops
judicial activism is stretching things a little bit, I believe. This
opens the floodgates to judicial activism, the Goodlatte amendment, so
that is why I oppose the amendment. It revises title II of the bill to
eliminate agencies' ``gap-filling'' authority when interpreting
ambiguous statutes.
Judicial review of final agency action is a hallmark of
administrative law and is critical to ensuring that agency action does
not harm or adversely affect the public. But as the Supreme Court held,
in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, reviewing
courts may only invalidate an agency action when it violates a
constitutional provision or when an agency exceeds its statutory
authority as clearly expressed by Congress.
That is a clear rule that has worked fine for America for the last 30
years. Over that time, this seminal decision has required deference to
the substantive expertise and political accountability of Federal
agencies because, after all, judges don't have political accountability
because they are appointed for life. They are not elected by the
people.
So this legislation is turning around this very fair and balanced
court decision and, instead, imposing a new setup, one that invites
judges--whom they appoint, by the way. They are the ones who have
refused, for the last year, to appoint or to consider the appointment
of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice so that they could get a Republican in
the White House.
They did not want anybody other than somebody made to order, and this
is what this legislation lays the groundwork for is that new Supreme
Court Justice who has yet to be named by a Republican incoming
President. But you can bet it will be one who has corporate interests
at heart instead of that of middle class and working people and
regular, ordinary people. You can bet that that Supreme Court
representative will be ready to do away with the Chevron doctrine and
comply with this legislative mandate, which is open season on
regulations, allowing the Federal judiciary to impose its political
beliefs on regulations.
So that is going to be bad for America. Generalist courts, which are
constitutionally insulated from political accountability, should not
have the power to second-guess agency experts concerning the
appropriateness of highly technical regulations crucial to protecting
the health and safety of millions of Americans.
Moreover, this doctrine promotes predictability for businesses and
the public. Professor Levin notes that ``because citizens can put some
confidence in the expectation that decisions by a centralized agency
will not be readily overturned by a variety of courts in different
parts of the country,'' that contributes to predictability.
{time} 1515
Title II of H.R. 5, however, would upend this longstanding precedent
by abolishing the Chevron doctrine.
This amendment further puts the thumb on the scale against lifesaving
protections by ensuring that practically any statutory ambiguity will
be resolved in favor of a regulated entity and against agency action,
no matter how important.
This amendment is also a solution in search of a problem. As
Professor Levin has testified, ``the field of administrative law has
worked out a variety of political and judicial oversight mechanisms to
maintain a delicate balance of power among the branches of
government.''
Any administrative action based on an ambiguous statute could be
challenged by an affected party, and these checks already apply to
judicial review.
Finally, this measure would apply equally to regulatory and
deregulatory actions. John Walke, the clean air director and senior
attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council warns that if an
``administration more ideologically opposed to regulation wishes to
take advantage of the inevitable vagueness, conflicts, and gaps in
federal statutes, it may adopt the least protective regulation
permissible under a federal law.''
Mr. Chair, because this is a bad amendment, I ask that it be opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the record a list of
organizations supporting H.R. 5.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
[[Page H345]]
Agricultural Retailers Association,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
To All Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: On
behalf of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ABA), I am
writing to urge a vote in support of H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory
Accountability Act'' sponsored by Representative Bob
Goodlatte (R-VA). This legislation includes a number of
important provisions designed to reform the Federal
rulemaking process.
All stakeholders have a right to fair, open, and
transparent rulemaking that respects the proper role of the
states and the intent of Congress. For decades, there have
been Executive Orders issued from both Republican and
Democrat Administrations highlighting the importance of an
open, transparent, and fair regulatory process. H.R. 5 is an
important step forward in codifying the principles that
Presidents of both parties have issued in Executive Order
12004 (Issued in Match 1978), Executive Order 12291 (Issued
in February 1981), Executive Order 12866 (Issued in September
1993), Executive Order 13132 (Issued in August 1999), and
Executive Order 13563 (Issued in January 2011).
Some of the reforms in H.R. 5 include provisions such as
requiring federal agencies to use less costly regulations,
rather than more costly proposals, to obtain a stated
objective; requiring federal agencies to explain how their
proposed regulations would impact small business owners,
their employees, and customers; prohibiting any new rules
with a significant economic impact from taking effect until
litigation against such proposal has been fully settled
without impacting existing regulations; and requiring Federal
agencies to publish mandatory transparency reports.
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) plans to offer an amendment on
the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit
agencies from using social media to sway public opinion in
favor of a pending agency proposal. This common-sense
amendment is necessary to prevent actions taken by federal
agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) that the General Accountability Office (GAO) found took
unlawful actions during its `Waters of the United States''
(WOTUS) proposed rulemaking. ARA urges all House members to
vote in favor of the Peterson amendment and to vote ``Yes''
on final passage of H.R, 5.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Gupton,
Senior Vice President,
Public Policy & Counsel.
____
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep.: The House of Representatives will soon take up
H.R. 5 for debate and a vote. This measure contains a number
of important elements that are designed to improve the
Federal rulemaking process. American Farm Bureau urges all
members to vote in favor of this legislation.
For decades, presidents of both parties have issued
Executive Orders and Memoranda underscoring the importance of
a regulatory process that is open, transparent and fair:
President Carter stipulated in EO 12044 that regulations
should not impose unnecessary burdens on the economy.
President Reagan issued EO 12291 in February 1981 to assure
that least-cost alternatives would be used in regulatory
decision-making.
President Clinton affirmed that regulations should maximize
net benefits (EO 12866, September 1993). Later in his
Administration, President Clinton issued EO 13132 reaffirming
the importance of federalism and respecting the rights of
states.
President Obama underscored the importance of sound science
in his Memorandum of March 2009. He also reaffirmed President
Clinton's EO 12866 when he issued EO 13563.
We understand that an amendment to H.R. 5 will be offered
on the floor by Rep. Peterson to prohibit agencies from using
social media to sway public opinion in favor of a pending
agency proposal. This amendment stems directly from EPA's
conduct in its `waters of the US' (WOTUS) rulemaking, conduct
found unlawful by the General Accountability Office and
scrupulously detailed in a report released by the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
``Politicization of the Waters of the United States
Rulemaking.'' We strongly support the Peterson amendment and
urge all members to vote in favor of its adoption.
All stakeholders--farmers, ranchers, environmentalists,
academics, agency staff, and the general public--have a right
to a rulemaking process that is fair, open, transparent,
respectful of the role of states in our Federal system, and
faithful to the intent of Congress. H.R. 5 is an important
step in codifying principles that Presidents of both parties
have enunciated for decades. This legislation deserves
strong, bipartisan support.
We urge all members to vote in favor of the Peterson
amendment and to vote ``Yes'' on final passage of H.R. 5.
Sincerely,
Zippy Duvall,
President.
____
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.,
Washington, DC, January 5, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC), a national construction industry trade
association with 70 chapters representing nearly 21,000
members, I am writing in support of the Regulatory
Accountability Act of 2017 (H.R. 5) introduced by Rep. Bob
Goodlatte (R-VA). ABC supports this legislation, which would
reform the Administrative Procedures Act and strengthen
existing checks on federal agencies, allowing for more cost-
effective regulations through a more transparent process.
As builders of our communities and infrastructure, ABC
members understand the value of standards and regulations
based on solid evidence, with appropriate consideration paid
to implementation costs and input from affected businesses.
ABC strongly supports comprehensive regulatory reform which
includes across-the-board requirements for departments and
agencies to appropriately evaluate risks, weigh costs, and
assess benefits of all regulations. H.R. 5 is an excellent
step in regulatory reform as it ensures more accountability
from federal agencies and greater stakeholder transparency.
Today, federal regulatory agencies wield incredible power
through rulemaking. They have grown adept at using procedural
loopholes in order to accomplish narrowly-focused goals.
These agencies operate relatively unchecked and unsupervised,
especially during the early stages of the regulatory process.
They often disregard and circumvent the will of Congress and
the American public by issuing regulations with poor or
incomplete economic cost-benefit forecasting or other data
analysis, instead of using the best and most accurate data
that could have created more practical, sustainable rules and
regulations.
Consequently, some regulations that have limited or
questionable benefit result in crippling costs for companies
and often no serious consideration is given for more
practical alternatives. For the construction industry, these
regulations routinely translate into higher costs and are
passed along to the consumer.
Ultimately, these costs impact our industry's ability to
expand and hire more workers. It is particularly alarming
that small businesses, which comprise the vast majority of
the industry, are disproportionately affected by this
irresponsible approach to regulation.
Thank you for your attention on this important matter and
we urge the House to pass the Regulatory Accountability Act
of 2017.
Sincerely,
Kristen Swearingen,
Vice President of Legislative
& Political Affairs.
____
The Associated General
Contractors of America,
Arlington, VA, January 10, 2017.
Re Vote ``YES'' on the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,
H.R. 5.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Ryan: On behalf of the Associated
General Contractors of America (AGC) and its more than 26,000
commercial construction company members, I strongly urge you
to vote ``YES'' on the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,
H.R. 5. This legislation is critical to helping ensure that
regulations undergo thorough economic analysis, are based in
sound science and/or substantial empirical data, and are
transparent with clear and feasible methods and goals.
The current regulatory process allows federal agencies to
promulgate rules based on unconvincing, scant and--
sometimes--just plain wrong evidence. For example, Professor
David L. Sunding, Ph.D., Thomas J. Graff Chair of Natural
Resource Economics at the University of California, Berkeley
found that the ``errors, omissions, and lack of
transparency'' in the Environmental Protection Agency's
economic analysis underlying its Waters of the Unites States
(WOTUS) rule to be ``so severe as to render it virtually
meaningless.'' Yet, the EPA was able to finalize that rule
based on such flawed analysis.
Federal agencies also write rules that are not feasible for
the construction industry to follow. The Occupational Health
and Safety Administration (OSHA) crystalline silica rule, for
instance, put forth a permissible silica exposure limit that
is beyond the capacity of existing dust filtration and
removal technology. Despite this fact, OSHA finalized this
rule and the construction industry is left liable to
implement.
The Regulatory Accountability Act will help hold federal
agencies accountable to the facts throughout the rulemaking
process. Under this legislation, the public could challenge
the underlying evidence agencies put forth to justify their
rules. Such challenges could occur through hearings before
the agency and before courts, which generally defer to any
evidence put forth by federal agencies currently. As a
result, agencies would be incentivized to undertake more
rigorous and realistic analyses, rather than risk delays as a
result of relying on cherry-picked studies or self-serving,
internal data.
The purpose of the bill is not partisan. Rather, it is to
ensure that the regulations federal agencies put forth are
feasible and based in thorough economic analysis and sound
science. To do so, H.R. 5 allows for greater transparency,
more public participation and needed objectivity in the
rulemaking process. As such, AGC again urges you to for in
favor of H.R. 5.
[[Page H346]]
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
Senior Executive Director, Government Affairs.
____
Business Roundtable,
January 6, 2017.
Re Support for H.R. 5--The Regulatory Accountability Act of
2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the CEO
members of Business Roundtable, who lead major U.S. companies
with more than $6 trillion in annual revenues and nearly 15
million employees, I am pleased to express our strong support
for H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,
introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
Business Roundtable CEOs have consistently identified
overly complex and burdensome federal regulations as harmful
to accelerating job creation, job retention and increased
economic opportunity for American workers and their families.
We support a smarter approach to federal regulation that
would engage regulated parties earlier in the process,
improve the quality of information used to make regulatory
decisions and consistently apply rigorous cost-benefit
analysis to major regulatory proposals.
We are particularly pleased that H.R. 5 includes the
previously introduced version of the Regulatory
Accountability Act, also championed by Chairman Goodlatte,
the ALERT Act, championed by Representative John Ratcliffe,
and the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act,
championed by Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer.
Overall, the smart regulatory improvements embodied in the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 will:
Make U.S. companies more competitive. Usually after
prolonged periods of consideration, federal agencies
regularly issue rules that impose large and often unnecessary
burdens on U.S. businesses--burdens that foreign competitors
may not have to bear. The Act will reduce these burdens.
Enable U.S. companies to be more innovative. American
businesses are the world's most innovative, and that
innovation supports America's high standard of living. Rules
that require particular technologies or approaches or fail to
keep up with technological evolution can jeopardize future
innovation. The Act will encourage flexible, non-prescriptive
implementation that preserves the capacity to innovate.
Stimulate investment by enhancing business certainty. If
companies are unsure about what regulators will require or
how to comply with rules, they will be reluctant to commit
capital to new or expanded productive investments. By
encouraging early engagement with regulated parties and
improving the transparency and accountability of the
regulatory process, the Act will result in greater certainty
for U.S. businesses and thereby accelerate job growth and
investment.
The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 would make the
U.S. regulatory system more transparent, accountable and
effective. We endorse this legislation and pledge our full
support to see it enacted into law.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Costa,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Chemical
Company
Chair, Smart Regulation Committee, Business Roundtable.
____
National Association
of Realtors,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On behalf
of the 1.1 million members of the National Association of
REALTORS (NAR), I urge the House to approve H.R. 5
(Goodlatte, R-VA; Peterson, D-MN), the ``Regulatory
Accountability Act''.
NAR believes that federal regulations should be narrowly
tailored, supported by strong data and evidence, and impose
the least costs possible on regulated stakeholders.
The Regulatory Accountability Act embodies these principles
and will contribute to a more transparent and accountable
regulatory process by:
Increasing public participation in shaping the most-costly
regulations at an earlier point in the rulemaking process;
Instructing agencies to choose the least costly option that
achieves congressional intent unless they can show a costlier
option is needed to protect health, safety, or welfare;
Requiring public hearings for the most-costly regulations;
Improving the process for evaluating how small businesses
are impacted by regulations; and
Providing for a more rigorous test in legal challenges for
those regulations that would have the most impact.
The Regulatory Accountability Act builds on established
principles of a fair regulatory process and would make the
regulatory process more transparent, agencies more
accountable for their decisions, and regulations better-
tailored to achieve their purpose without unnecessary burdens
on stakeholders.
The Regulatory Accountability Act would allow Congress and
the public to reassert control over the federal regulatory
bureaucracy. Therefore, NAR strongly supports the Act, and
urges passage of the bill when it comes to the House floor
for a vote.
Sincerely,
William E. Brown,
2017 President.
____
National Federation of
Independent Business,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
Hon. Steve Chabot,
Chairman, House Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chabot, on behalf of the National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small
business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of
H.R. 33, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Improvements Act of 2017. This legislation puts into place
strong protections to ensure that federal agencies fully
consider the impact of proposed regulations on small
businesses.
In an economy where two-thirds of all net new jobs come
from the small business sector, we appreciate that this
legislation would require regulators to analyze further the
impact of certain proposals on job creation. As you well
know, the annual cost of federal regulation per employee is
significantly higher for smaller firms than larger firms.
Federal regulations--not to mention state and local
regulations--add up and significantly increase the cost of
starting and running a small business.
H.R. 33 expands the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) by forcing government regulators to include the
indirect impact of their regulations in their assessments of
a regulation's impact on small businesses. The bill also
provides small business with expanded judicial review
protections, which helps ensure that small businesses have
their views heard during the federal rulemaking process, not
after.
The legislation strengthens several other aspects of the
RFA--such as expanding the small business advocacy review
panel process to all agencies. Currently, the panels only
apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These panels have
proven to be an extremely effective mechanism in helping
agencies to understand how their rules will affect small
businesses, and help agencies identify less costly
alternatives to regulations before proposing new rules.
Finally, H.R. 33 expands the standard for periodic review
of rules by federal agencies and gives the U.S. Small
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy increased input
into agency compliance with the RFA. These important
protections are needed to prevent duplicative and outdated
regulatory burdens as well as to address penalty structures
that are too high for the small business sector.
NFIB supports H.R. 33 because it strengthens the
requirement for federal agencies to consider both the direct
and indirect economic impact of proposed regulations on small
businesses. We look forward to working with the committee
towards enactment of the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act of 2017.
Sincerely,
Juanita D. Duggan,
President and CEO NFIB.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 5, which
includes the Regulatory Accountability Act, and may consider
including votes on, or in relation to, H.R. 5 in our annual
How They Voted scorecard.
The Chamber commends the House for acting on regulatory
reform legislation so early in the 115th session, and for
bringing H.R. 5, which also includes important provisions
related to small businesses, to the floor.
The Regulatory Accountability Act is a long-standing
priority for the Chamber and would update the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to improve how federal agencies
promulgate those rules with the most significant impact on
jobs and economic growth.
Modernization of APA is long overdue. While there has been
a dramatic increase in high impact, transformative rules that
are slowing economic growth and inhibiting job creation, APA
rulemaking provisions have remained virtually unchanged since
1946 when the law was established.
H.R. 5 would target only the most expensive and burdensome
of these rules for increased scrutiny by providing greater
transparency, by holding agencies accountable, and by making
sure the data behind the decisions of regulators are made
publicly available.
The Chamber urges you to support this legislation and to
oppose any weakening amendment when it is considered likely
next week.
Sincerely,
Jack Howard,
Senior Vice President,
Congressional and Public Affair.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H347]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, 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 Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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 38, insert after line 10 the following:
SEC. 110. PROMPT ISSUANCE OF OIRA GUIDELINES.
The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget
shall establish any guideline required to be established by
this title or the amendments made by this title by not later
than 270 days after the date of enactment of this title.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 5 requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
often called OIRA, to provide guidelines for agencies on how to
effectively conduct regulatory activities.
This is a great bill. I wholeheartedly support the bill. We simply
want to add a timeline to this bill so that we give the proper
incentive, notification, and time to properly institute what this new
law would do.
The regulatory activities engaged in this bill that OIRA, the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, deals with need to include cost
and benefit assessments and their economic or risk assessments;
coordination, simplification, and harmonization of the agency rules;
conforming rulemaking to the notice and comment requirements and formal
rulemaking requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act; as well as
the application of the Information Quality Act to rulemaking
proceedings under what is called the APA.
These guidelines required by the underlying bill are moving the
country in the right direction and will ensure that agencies produce
thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-vetted regulations.
The simple amendment that I offer today, Mr. Chairman, to H.R. 5
simply requires OIRA to issue guidance within 270 days. I think this is
the right balance of encouragement to have them get going on it right
away, but at the same time not allowing this to linger in perpetuity
with no end in sight.
This amendment provides OIRA, I think, the proper balance. That is
why I have offered this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Chaffetz amendment. This amendment establishes a deadline of 270 days--
a magical number of days--for some reason. There is no reason given for
that being the number of days, but that is what they give to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, to issue guidelines
pursuant to title I of this bill.
Why 270 days?
Well, I think I can answer that question. They know that OIRA is not
equipped to sufficiently deal with regulations within that same amount
of time period. We have had all this budget cutting going on. We have
been attacking the Federal Government regulatory authorities throughout
the entire 6 years that Republicans have been in control of this House.
They have done 6 years' worth of hobbling OIRA, and now they are going
to come forward and impose a 270-day requirement. That is like asking
someone who you have handicapped to run in a relay race that you know
they can't win.
To begin with, I would note that OIRA, which typically has fewer than
50 employees, often serves as a bottleneck for the promulgation of
economically significant rules, as reported last year by Public
Citizen.
Moreover, as a group of the Nation's leading administrative law
scholars have noted that the Regulatory Accountability Act is
``unusually ambitious and crammed with details that are impossible to
summarize,'' that will ``further ossify the rulemaking process with
little offsetting benefits in the form of better rules.''
Many of these new procedures task OIRA with making numerous new
determinations and expanded review of formal rulemaking. In addition,
to hobbling over the last 6 years, and then imposing a deadline of an
arbitrary and capricious number of days, you are going to heap
additional requirements upon them without increasing their staff that
you have already cut.
Given the sheer breadth of these requirement, it may be difficult or
impossible for OIRA to comply with the deadline imposed by this
amendment, absent additional congressional appropriations, which, of
course, they are not interested in.
Accordingly, I rise to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, certainly the gentleman from Georgia is not opposed to
the number 270. It is a beautiful number. Normally we give them about 6
months to promulgate a rule. This is 50 percent more than that. It is
roughly 9 months. If a woman can give birth in that amount of time, my
guess is they can go ahead and put together some rules in that amount
of time.
We gave it quite a bit of thought. I think it is properly balanced.
We don't want it to be a year. It is 50 percent more than we normally
ask and that OIRA is used to doing in rulemaking. So certainly they can
accomplish that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that title I of the
bill contains several key requirements for the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, to put out high-quality, governmentwide
guidelines that all agencies can follow. These include, for example,
guidelines on cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, consistency with
the Information Quality Act, and good guidance practices.
Since the importance of these issues and the need for swift and
effective implementation of reform, the amendment's institution of a
270-day deadline for the issuance of these guidelines is very
reasonable, very constructive. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think what I gather is that
we need better regulations. Therefore, we have to provide more
requirements on OIRA with respect to the regulations it issues, while
at the same time claiming that regulations are bad and we have
unelected bureaucrats and all of this kind of stuff like that.
So we need better laws to allow them to regulate better. Then we are
going to give them 270 days, which is a little more than we give the
average agency. Well, I thank you for that, but you have not increased
the manpower of the agency to deal with the new requirements that you
are stacking on them. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The real reason for this amendment is to help foster the gumming up
of the Federal regulatory system. That is what it is all about. There
are a lot of little small ways of doing that, heaping it on top of the
larger measure, which is itself just inimical to good rulemaking. This
is a game, and the American people are the big losers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from Georgia is
opposed to this bill, but I do think it is reasonable to give a time
frame as to when they are supposed to issue this so it doesn't continue
on in perpetuity. I think it is reasonable.
[[Page H348]]
To the gentleman's point about the staffing, we don't get into that
granular detail here. That is left to the Office of Management and
Budget. Those decisions have been made by the Obama administration for
the last 8 years. The new Office of Management and Budget will need to
take into account the staffing levels and how OMB will determine
whether they need more staff or less staff, but I would certainly
support the idea that, if they are overwhelmed with issues, let's make
sure that they are properly staffed.
This is an important agency. It is the bottleneck. We have to make
sure that they are functioning properly. We are supportive of that, but
I do think it is reasonable to offer that timeline. I appreciate the
support of the chairman on this, and I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chabot
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 304(d)(1) of the bill, strike ``and'' at the
end.
In section 304(d)(2) of the bill, strike the period and
insert ``; and''.
In section 304(d), insert after paragraph (2) the
following:
(3) by inserting ``The detailed statement shall include an
economic assessment or a summary thereof that is sufficiently
detailed to support the agency's certification.'' before
``The agency shall provide such certification''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer this amendment to address a longstanding problem: agencies
not fully analyzing the effects of regulations on small businesses.
Under the current Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency may certify a
rule if it expects that the rule will not have--and I am quoting the
current law here--``a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.''
When an agency certifies a rule, it does not need to perform a full
regulatory flexibility analysis. This provision makes sense because not
every rule affects small businesses.
Unfortunately, agencies appear to be abusing this provision.
According to a recent study, agencies only prepared analyses for
approximately 8 percent of rules finalized between 1996 and 2012.
A recent example of this occurred with the controversial waters of
United States rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps
of Engineers certified that rule despite the significant and direct
consequences for farmers, ranchers, and home builders. Most of those
are small businesses.
Although the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy
sent a letter to the agencies stating that the certification was
improper and urging them to withdraw the rule, the agencies ignored the
Chief Counsel and proceeded to finalize it anyway.
{time} 1530
This amendment addresses this problem by requiring agencies to
include--and I am quoting my amendment--``an economic assessment or a
summary thereof that is sufficiently detailed to support the agency's
certification.'' This will be published in the Federal Register as part
of the detailed statement and certification for the proposed rule.
This approach mirrors the one used in the National Environmental
Policy Act. When an agency finds a project to have no significant
impacts on the environment, it is required to provide an environmental
assessment or a summary of it. Since agencies are required to provide a
threshold analysis when they issue a finding of no significant impact
for actions that could affect the environment, it just makes sense to
extend the same type of requirement to rules that could affect small
businesses. Small businesses, after all, are the folks that are
responsible for creating two-thirds, or about 70 percent, of the new
jobs created nowadays. So anything that burdens these small businesses
is something that is, by definition, bad for the economy and bad for
job creation.
This particular amendment, I think, improves the underlying
legislation. It makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, which will further strengthen the RFA and ensure that
agencies' decisions are supported by data.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require
agencies to provide a detailed economic assessment prior to certifying
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities.
I oppose this bill for a number of reasons. Number one, it forces
agencies to prove a negative. The negative being that it will not have
a significant--bookmark that for a second--a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I mean, proving a negative is always very difficult to do, that it
won't do this. Certainly very difficult. But then when you give the
decisionmaker a vague and ambiguous frame of reference like
``significant,'' what does significant economic impact mean?
It means different things to different people. So that is vague and
ambiguous. It allows for unbridled discretion by an unelected
bureaucrat, to use that term that my friends like to use, but in this
instance I am using it with respect to a newly appointed plutocratic
bureaucrat like, say, Linda McMahon at the Small Business
Administration, a billionaire. Give that to, you know, a bureaucrat
such as that and let them decide whether or not it has a significant
economic impact. They are going to say, yes, it has a significant
economic impact. They are going to do it every time because that is
their agenda. They support a pro-big-business agenda. That is what they
represent, and so that is how they would rule.
When you add that it has to be a substantial number of small
businesses, well, what is a substantial number? Is it 10 percent, 20
percent, 50 percent?
That is up to whoever the decisionmaker is, the unelected bureaucrat.
We see the setup. I think the American people understand what this
amendment seeks to do. It requires agencies to provide a detailed
economic assessment of the economic impacts of a proposed or final rule
prior to certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Title III of H.R. 5 substantially increases agencies'
responsibilities with respect to rulemaking, including a requirement to
supply a detailed statement that includes the factual and legal basis
of the reasons why an agency has determined that a proposed or final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
Boy, you can just chase your tail all around for days trying to meet
that standard.
This onerous measure will force agencies to expend already strained
resources and incur considerable costs to implement the bill. Also,
giving corporations an opportunity to contest these arbitrary decisions
if they go the right way in court.
Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an
identical version of this legislation considered last Congress would
cost $55 million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary funds.
By requiring agencies to quantify the economic effects that a
rulemaking will have on small businesses, which may be unknowable in
some cases, this amendment may task agencies with providing an economic
report on a counterfactual hypothetical basis. This requirement would
do little to ease compliance costs or promote small business
development or growth, and more likely it will lead to regulatory
avoidance and ossification and less small business activity because the
big businesses are going to be allowed to crowd them out. Accordingly,
I oppose
[[Page H349]]
this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be brief, and then I will invite my colleague from Virginia to
respond.
Just a couple of quick points. First of all, relative to this
significant economic impact language that my distinguished colleague
from Georgia is talking about, that is already in the existing law, so
we are not changing anything there. We are not saying it ought to say a
significant economic impact. It already says that in the existing law.
Both the bureaucrats and the courts are used to determining what the
terminology like ``significant'' means under the rule or regulation or
the law, just as what a reasonable man is. ``Reasonable'' is quite
common throughout the legal structure.
We are also not giving discretion to Ms. McMahon, the soon-to-be head
of the SBA. It is to the Chief Counsel, and he is independent.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. Title III of
the bill contains important reforms to make sure agencies finally take
seriously Congress' directive to write rules with flexible
accommodations for small businesses, the source of most of our Nation's
job creation.
Congress' demands for flexibility began with the Regulatory
Accountability Act during the 1980s, but agencies have never fully
complied. One of the key ways agencies have skirted the law's
requirements has been to certify their way out of any need to actually
provide flexibility by finding that a proposed or final rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This amendment puts the brakes on an inadequately substantiated
certification by requiring certifications to include economic
assessment details sufficient to support the certifications. I support
the amendment.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is already covered in
current law, so why do we need this amendment?
Well, it is a messaging piece to be able to say to the listening
audience that we support small business. Well, gosh, I think we have
answered that question here on this side whether or not they really do
support small business. It is clear they support big business, and that
is what this amendment is going to help facilitate without adding to
the overall bill. For that reason, I ask that we oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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:
Strike line 13 on page 39 and all that follows through line
26 on page 69, and insert the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory
Improvement Act of 2017''.
SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.
Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Economic impact.--The term `economic impact' means,
with respect to a proposed or final rule--
``(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such
rule; and
``(B) any indirect economic effect on small entities which
is reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without
regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated
by the rule).''.
SEC. 303. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.
(a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Subsection
(b) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required
under this section shall contain a detailed statement
describing--
``(1) the reasons why the action by the agency is being
considered;
``(2) the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed
rule;
``(3) the type of small entities to which the proposed rule
will apply;
``(4) the number of small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply or why such estimate is not available;
``(5) the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be
subject to the requirement, the costs, and the type of
professional skills necessary to comply with the rule; and
``(6) all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or the reasons
why such a description could not be provided.''.
(b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
(1) Paragraph (4) of such section is amended by striking
``an explanation'' and inserting ``a detailed explanation''.
(2) Paragraph (5) of such section is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) a description of the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule,
including an estimate of the classes of small entities which
will be subject to the requirement, the costs, and the type
of professional skills necessary to comply with the rule;
and''.
(c) Certification of No Impact.--Subsection (b) of section
605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``detailed'' before ``statement'' both places such term
appears.
SEC. 304. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.
Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules
``(a) Not later than 180 days after the effective date of
this section, each agency shall publish in the Federal
Register and place on its website a plan for the periodic
review of rules issued by the agency which the head of the
agency determines have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Such determination
shall be made without regard to whether the agency performed
an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the review
shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued
without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to
minimize significant economic impacts on a substantial number
of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the agency at
any time by publishing the revision in the Federal Register
and subsequently placing the amended plan on the agency's
website.
``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such
agency rules existing on the effective date of this section
within 10 years of the date of publication of the plan in the
Federal Register and for review of rules adopted after the
effective date of this section within 10 years after the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. If the
head of the agency determines that completion of the review
of existing rules is not feasible by the established date,
the head of the agency shall so certify in a statement
published in the Federal Register and may extend the review
for not longer than 2 years after publication of notice of
extension in the Federal Register. Such certification and
notice shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy and
the Congress.
``(c) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding
the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the
Congress and, in the case of agencies other than independent
regulatory agencies (as defined in section 3502(5) of title
44, United States Code) to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget. Such report shall include the
identification of any rule with respect to which the head of
the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or
(6) of subsection (d) and a detailed explanation of the
reasons for such determination.
``(d) In reviewing rules under such plan, the agency shall
consider the following factors:
``(1) The continued need for the rule.
``(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from
small entities concerning the rule.
``(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
``(4) The complexity of the rule.
``(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of
the agency determines it to be infeasible, State and local
rules.
``(6) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated
or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
``(e) The agency shall publish in the Federal Register and
on its website a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to
such plan. Such publication shall include a brief description
of the rule, the reason why the agency determined that it has
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities (without regard to whether it had prepared a
final regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule), and
request comments from the public, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman concerning
the enforcement of the rule.''.
[[Page H350]]
SEC. 305. CHANGES TO THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT TO
COMPORT WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 13272.
(a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Section 603
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(e) An agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration of any draft rules that
may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities either--
``(1) when the agency submits a draft rule to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of
Management and Budget, if submission is required; or
``(2) if no submission to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs is so required, at a reasonable time prior
to publication of the rule by the agency.''.
(b) Inclusion in Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
Response to Comments on Certification of Proposed Rule.--
Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after ``initial regulatory
flexibility analysis'' the following: ``(or certification of
the proposed rule under section 605(b))''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act has reduced regulatory costs by $130
billion since 1998. However, it could do better. The amendment I am
offering will improve this process.
However, unlike the underlying bill, my amendment is actually aligned
with the original statute, which was created to protect the unique
needs of small businesses in the regulatory process, not to stop
regulations. My amendment is also much more cost effective to the
taxpayers, as the underlying bill creates a massive and unnecessary
government bureaucracy. It should be noted that my amendment is based
on bipartisan legislation from a previous Congress, which the committee
reported by a recorded vote of 26-0.
The amendment makes improvements to the most significant deficiencies
facing the Regulatory Flexibility Act without the overly broad changes
contained in the underlying bill. This includes making sure that
agencies live up to their obligations to retrospectively review the
burdens of existing rules on small businesses. The GAO has reported on
numerous occasions that agency compliance with this requirement was
poor. My amendment holds the agencies more accountable by requiring
them to report the results of their reviews to Congress annually.
My amendment also takes steps to make analyses more detailed so that
agencies cannot ignore the RFA and simply certify that a rule has no
significant economic impact on small businesses. Addressing this matter
will ensure that agencies are required to provide a more factual basis
for such certifications rather than just a sentence which dismisses the
concerns of small firms.
The most important aspect of my amendment is what it does not do.
Unlike H.R. 5, my amendment does not create a new governmentwide
bureaucracy or foist a truckload of new responsibilities on the Office
of Advocacy, which only has a $9 million budget.
For instance, H.R. 5 requires the Office of Advocacy to approve size
standards, a function already handled by the SBA. This is like creating
a Rayburn cafeteria next to the Rayburn cafeteria. It is ridiculous.
This is a complete waste of taxpayer resources and will, ironically,
take the Office of Advocacy away from its core mission of monitoring
regulations.
Also, another aspect that is very important, what this legislation
does is it is setting the Office of Advocacy to fail. They do not have
the expertise. They do not have the resources. In addition, H.R. 5
imposes the panel process across the entire government. I will say that
again. Across the entire government, including all independent
agencies. So much for fiscal responsibility. There is another complete
waste of taxpayer resources, and it will further limit the Office of
Advocacy's ability to weigh in on the most important matters affecting
small businesses.
Instead, my amendment makes the targeted changes to the RFA that
small businesses have called for over the last 5 years. In doing so, it
is cost effective and responsible to the taxpayers. I urge Members to
vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a couple of points. First, before speaking in opposition to this
amendment, I would note that the ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, and I
worked very much in a bipartisan and cooperative manner on a whole
range of issues. We have done that when she chaired the committee and I
was the ranking member, and we do that now that I am the chair and she
is the ranking member. I commend her for that cooperation. We have
actually gotten a lot of things done in the Small Business Committee on
behalf of small businesses all across the country in both Democratic
and Republican districts.
That being said, I would also note that this particular language, in
essence, replaces our H.R. 5, title III, with Ms. Velazquez's version.
She mentioned that hers is bipartisan. Ours is as well. Mr. Cuellar was
a principal cosponsor of this particular legislation, so, by
definition, it is bipartisan. I would also note that we have dealt with
this a number of times over the years, and we have included a
significant number of Democratic amendments already in our underlying
bill as well. So it truly is bipartisan.
The gentlewoman from New York's amendment would essentially strike
title III of the bill, and it would replace it with alternative
language. While I am heartened that she agrees that the Regulatory
Flexibility Act needs to be improved, this amendment just does not go
far enough to address, in my view, most Federal agencies' habitual
disregards for small businesses. We know that the bureaucracy does
disregard small businesses time and time again. That is why we feel so
strongly about this bill.
Ms. Velazquez's amendment includes a few of the reforms that the
current title has, but, unfortunately, it fails to include many other
important ones. Her amendment does not close the loophole the IRS uses
to avoid complying with the RFA, for example, and it does not provide
additional opportunities for small businesses to provide input on
proposed rules through the Small Business Advocacy Review panel
process.
It does not require the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to issue
government-wide RFA compliance regulations that all agencies must
follow. Without these compliance regulations, agencies will just
continue to develop their own interpretations of the RFA to avoid
complying with the law's requirement.
America's small businesses deserve more meaningful reform, and the
current title III of the bill, in our view, does just that; therefore,
I would urge my colleagues, respectfully, to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for being
so kind. But let me just say that on this one, your approach is not
balanced, and it is going to impact the very agencies that you are
empowering with so many responsibilities.
I would like to ask the gentleman, adding all these new
responsibilities that would require manpower and expertise that is
needed, how much money is included in the authorizing process for this
office to work properly?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to increase
bureaucracy or hire a whole lot more people to implement this. We have
plenty of people right now who work for the Federal Government, and I
am sure that we can shift some resources around, people can work harder
and smarter, and we can be leaner and meaner. The bureaucracy has grown
far too large over the years.
That money comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes
out of the hardworking taxpayers of our country. A lot of those folks
are small business folks, and they are folks that
[[Page H351]]
have gotten the short end of the stick far too often.
Hopefully, this Congress will move legislation that comes out of this
body in a direction where, rather than throw roadblocks, hindrances,
and more problems in the pathway of small businesses, we are going to
help them. I know the last thing they want to hear is: I am from the
government, and I am here to help you.
The fact is the government does exist, and to the extent we can help
them, we ought to do that. But most of the small businesses that I talk
to, what they say is: just get the heck off my back. Quit telling me
how to do what I know how to do best.
So we are not anarchists over here. We are not saying that we don't
need any bureaucracy, we don't need any government, and we don't need
any regulations. We do need some regulations, but we overregulate now.
Hopefully, this is just one step in scaling back on the overregulation
that comes out of Washington and is like a wet blanket over small
businesses all over the country and like a wet blanket over the
American economy. So let's get that wet blanket off, let's get the
economy moving, and let's Make America Great Again.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Peterson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, insert after line 8 the following:
``(5) After notice or advance notice of a proposed rule
making, the agency making the rule, and any person acting in
an official capacity on behalf of the agency, may not
communicate, and a person who receives Federal funds from the
agency may not use those funds to communicate, through
written, oral, electronic, or other means to the public about
the proposed rule in a manner that--
``(A) directly advocates, in support of or against the
proposed rule, for the submission of information to form part
of the record of review for the proposed rule;
``(B) appeals to the public, or solicits a third-party, to
undertake advocacy in support of or against the proposed
rule; or
``(C) is directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda
purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized
by the Congress.
Such prohibition shall not apply to communication that
requests comments or provides information regarding the rule
in an impartial manner.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This
amendment will prohibit Federal agencies from using taxpayer dollars to
advocate on behalf of a rule or generate comments to overwhelm the
record with one point of view.
A GAO report documents how the EPA created a campaign to generate
comments in support of the waters of the U.S., or the WOTUS rule. This
is not how government, or the rulemaking process, should work.
The comment period should be a time for agencies to hear from the
public about what is good, what is bad, and what needs to be fixed with
a proposed rule. In my opinion, agencies too often take laws passed by
Congress and then turn them into something that is unrecognizable. That
is why this amendment is needed and has the support of the American
Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and
the National Association of Home Builders, among others.
This is a commonsense amendment that will improve the bill, and I
urge my colleagues to vote in support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully claim the time
in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which
would prohibit Federal agencies from making any public communications
that would promote a pending regulatory action.
We can all agree that the rulemaking process should be transparent,
flexible, and accountable to the public. But rather than achieve this
goal, my colleagues' amendment would decrease transparency in the
rulemaking process and burden agency rulemaking with little
corresponding benefits to the public.
A variety of statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and
agency specific statutes, already prescribe the method that agencies
may communicate to the public with regard to proposed rules. Agencies
should, and indeed are required by law to, communicate why rules are
beneficial to the public. For example, in 2014, the Department of
Defense proposed a rule to protect servicemembers and their families
from predatory lending schemes. In a press release discussing the rule,
the Defense Department highlighted the benefits of the rule such as
``this proposed rule would better protect Active Duty servicemembers
and their families from excessive debt.''
This plain language explanation of the proposed rule would be flatly
prohibited by this amendment. Indeed, there is little that an agency
could discuss about a pending rule that would not be considered to be
promoting the rule within the meaning of this amendment.
In the context of the proposed deregulation actions, in 2003, Bush
administration officials posed with chainsaws and scissors next to a
stack of papers to promote efforts to cut red tape. It is doubtful that
this form of public communication would be permissible under this
amendment. By the way, to see the Bush administration officials with a
chainsaw and scissors going at regulations reminds me of what we are
doing here today.
In the context of a veto threat of a similar antiregulatory proposal
last Congress, the Obama administration stated that similar
requirements would prevent agencies from efficiently performing their
statutory responsibilities and potentially lead to a less informed
public.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do
so as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I support his amendment.
Title I of the bill contains critical reforms to the rulemaking
process first introduced in the 112th Congress. In one sentence, one
could say that these reforms have one ultimate goal--to assure a fair
rulemaking process that achieves the benefits Congress seeks and keeps
unnecessary costs to a minimum.
The gentleman's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, responds to an
extreme example of rulemaking abuse that played out during the 114th
Congress. That abuse was the Environmental Protection Agency's advocacy
campaign to skew the information submitted for its administrative
record and promote lobbying on behalf of its massive proposed waters of
the United States rule.
It is one thing to propose a rule and open the agency's doors
impartially to information from all members of the public. It is quite
another to promote public submissions to guarantee the cooking of the
administrative record to support the agency's view and to advocate
lobbying of Congress to support that view.
This amendment makes sure that the biased agency activity manifest in
the waters of the United States rulemaking never happens again.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gerald Connolly
wanted it to be known for the record that agency employees are already
barred under appropriations bills from engaging in publicity or
propaganda. Agency employees are specifically barred from engaging in
substantial grass-roots lobbying campaigns when those campaigns are
aimed at encouraging members of the public to pressure Members of
Congress to support
[[Page H352]]
administration or department legislative or appropriations proposals.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. I have no further speakers, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to say that some of us who have been chairmen of committees and passed
legislation around here, sometimes what comes back you don't even
recognize from what you passed legislatively. This bill and this
amendment will help solve that problem, to some extent. So I encourage
my colleagues to support the amendment and support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this amendment
and in strong opposition to the Regulatory Accountability Act.
This bill is another thinly veiled mechanism for the majority to
attack agency rulemaking with which they disagree.
This amendment would prevent agencies from publicly disclosing
information that, quote, ``directly advocates, in support of or against
the proposed rule, for the submission of information to form part of
the record of review for the proposed rule.''
I am concerned that the way this language is written it could
restrict agencies from providing information about the benefits of a
rule and soliciting public feedback.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to solicit public
comments on proposed rules except in narrow circumstances. We should be
encouraging agencies to solicit public comments in order to provide
businesses, consumer groups, and other members of the public with the
opportunity to make suggestions to the agency for improving the
proposed rule.
Agency employees are already barred under appropriations bills from
engaging in publicity or propaganda.
Agency employees are specifically barred from engaging in
``substantial `grassroots' lobbying campaigns'' when those campaigns
are aimed at encouraging members of the public ``to pressure Members of
Congress to support Administration or Department legislative or
appropriations proposals.''
While transparency is always helpful in the regulatory process, a
requirement that agencies report to Congress every communication to the
public--including every oral communication from an agency official--
would be unnecessarily burdensome and would not be feasible for
agencies.
The GAO has already defined covert communications, self-
aggrandizement, and purely partisan activities as categories of agency
communications that are often restricted by these appropriations
riders.
Agencies are authorized to regulate by Congress, but this amendment
would further handicap federal agencies from fulfilling their critical
missions.
Under the guise of ``accountability'' this amendment is not even a
thinly disguised attempt to muzzle commonsense regulation by
suppressing even the ability to explain the proposed rule in the first
place.
I urge my colleagues to uphold Congress' confidence in the agency
rulemaking process and vote against this amendment and against the
Regulatory Accountability Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
{time} 1600
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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 23, line 24, strike ``and''.
Page 24, insert after line 5 the following:
``(iii) in the case of a major rule, a report on the
benefits and costs of the final rule on entities whose
conduct is regulated by the rule in the Federal Register, to
be revised every 5 years thereafter while the rule remains in
effect, and including, at a minimum--
``(I) an assessment of the impacts, including any costs, of
the major rule on regulated entities;
``(II) a determination about how the actual benefits and
costs of the major rule have varied from those anticipated at
the time the major rule was issued;
``(III) an assessment of the effectiveness and benefits of
the major rule in producing the regulatory objectives of the
major rule; and
``(IV) a review by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget when required under executive order;
and''.
Page 30, line 16, insert after ``the Federal Open Market
Committee.'' the following:
``(n) Regulation-specific Frameworks.--
``(1) Report to congress.--The agency shall provide a
report to Congress not later than 90 days after the agency
makes any determination under subsection (f)(4)(I)(iii)(II)
that the cost to regulated entities has exceeded the
anticipated cost at the time the final rule was issued. The
agency, at a minimum, shall assess in the report--
``(A) whether the major rule is accomplishing its
regulatory objective; and
``(B) whether the major rule has been rendered unnecessary,
taking into consideration--
``(i) changes in the subject area affected by the major
rule;
``(ii) whether the major rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other rules or, to the extent feasible, State
and local government regulations; and
``(iii) other alternatives to the major rule or
modification of the major rule that might achieve better
results while imposing a smaller burden on society or at a
lower cost, taking into consideration any cost already
incurred.
``(2) Reopening of public docket.--Upon delivery of the
report required in paragraph (1) the agency shall--
``(A) reopen the public docket for 60 days to receive
additional comments; and
``(B) consider modifications or alternatives that reduce
costs and increase benefits to regulated entities or
individuals.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to affect any other provision of law that
requires an agency to conduct retrospective reviews of rules
issued by the agency.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, since 2008, approximately
3,300 regulations have been issued on an annual basis. I will say that
again. Since 2008, approximately 3,300 regulations have been issued on
an annual basis. The cost of compliance with those regulations is
estimated to be somewhere around $981 million, and if you add up the
costs of compliance of all regulations, it is approximately double
that. According to various studies that are out there, since 2008, the
costs of complying with Federal regulations has doubled.
Mr. Chairman, this isn't about some huge megacorporation that is
worth billions of dollars and is a multinational company. This impacts
individuals. This impacts families. As a matter of fact, a study done
by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that approximately
$15,000 per year is how much the average American family spends just to
comply with Federal regulations.
Major regulations are regulations that are estimated to cost in
excess of $100 million. Under our amendment, what we do is simply
require that, every 5 years, the Federal agency that has promulgated--
that has finalized--a regulation go back and check how much it is
actually costing to comply with the regulation.
Here is why it is important, Mr. Chairman.
If you go back to a regulation that was proposed by the Department of
the Interior within the last year and a half that has to do with well
control in offshore energy production, the Department of the Interior
estimated that the cost of complying with that regulation was going to
be, approximately, $883 million over 10 years. However, a private
analysis that was done estimated that that figure was approximately
one-tenth of the true cost of compliance over the first decade--one-
tenth.
There is nothing that holds the Federal agencies accountable. They
can lowball numbers. They can stay below the threshold of a major
action and not ever have to be held accountable to the additional
analysis that is required for major regulatory actions. This, simply,
makes agencies go back on major regulations to re-quantify--reassess--
the costs of compliance to make sure that their numbers are accurate,
that they understand the costs of compliance,
[[Page H353]]
and the impact on the average American family.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am from the State of Louisiana. A study that
was done by the Mercatus Center found that the State of Louisiana is
the most federally regulated State in the United States. As a matter of
fact, so regulated that we are regulated 74 percent more than the
average State--74 percent more. That has a significant impact on jobs,
on our economy.
The cosponsor of this amendment--the gentleman from Texas with whom I
worked very closely, Mr. Chairman--says his State of Texas is burdened
by an additional 30 percent of regulations above the national average.
It is inappropriate; it penalizes our economy; it sends jobs overseas;
and, most importantly, it penalizes American families.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, any time I hear the name
``Mercatus Center'' I think of pro-big business, antiregulation. This
amendment imposes even more paralyzing rulemaking requirements to the
more than 60 analytical and procedural requirements that are already
mandated by title I of this bill. You are giving them more homework on
top of homework--busywork, red tape. Gum up the works--that is what
this is all about.
The amendment would require agencies to assess the economic impacts
of major rules every 5 years, including a cost-benefit analysis of the
rule every 5 years, an estimate of the rule's cost on regulated
entities, and whether these costs exceed an agency's initial estimates,
among other requirements. Worse yet, once this information is compiled,
the amendment would also require the agency to reopen the public docket
on the rule for 60 days to consider modifications to the underlying
rule.
Under current law, Federal agencies already conduct an extensive
retrospective review process of existing rules and have already saved
taxpayers billions in cost savings. This is yet another attempt to
derail the rulemaking process by paralysis through analysis.
Since 2011, the Obama administration has made a durable commitment to
ensuring the retrospective review of existing regulatory protections.
Pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 13563 and 13610, agencies are already
required to conduct a periodic review of existing rules to protect
public health while reducing paperwork burdens.
Furthermore, as the Obama administration stated in the context of a
veto threat of a similarly draconian antiregulatory proposal, ``it is
important that retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily constrain
an agency's ability to provide a timely response to critical public
health or safety issues or constrain its ability to implement new
statutory provisions.''
This amendment would do just that by requiring agencies to conduct a
perpetual notice-and-comment process for major rules that have been
adopted long ago. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, and I support
his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, many of the reforms in title I of the bill focus on
assuring better decisionmaking and cost control for major rules--
typically, those that impose more than $100 million or more per year in
costs.
One of these reforms is the commonsense requirement that an agency,
when it publishes a major rule, include a plan for reviewing how the
rule is working within 10 years. A focus of that review is to determine
whether it is possible, after the rule has been put into practice, to
find new ways to lower the rule's costs.
The gentleman's amendment speeds this process up, requiring review
within 5 years, and increases Congress' oversight, requiring reports by
agencies to Congress on their reviews. Most importantly, the amendment
requires that, if an agency's report to Congress shows the rule's costs
in practice are higher than anticipated at promulgation, the agency
must institute a notice-and-comment process aimed at identifying
revisions that can lower costs.
This is a measure that can only strengthen the bill's effectiveness
and help lower unnecessary burdens on the American people. I support
the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I thank Mr. Johnson.
I thank Ranking Member Conyers for the leadership that he provided
the committee for so many years. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and
Congressman Graves for working in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is common sense. It calls on the
government to bring transparency to the major rules.
Once an agency finalizes a major rule, that is the end of it. They
are not required to review the benefits or the economic impacts. This
amendment, however, holds the agency accountable by requiring that it
look back and assess the costs and benefits of that rule after it has
taken effect. Should the cost of the regulation exceed the proposed
costs under the rule, then, under this amendment, this agency will
report back the increase to the Congress. This amendment would
facilitate a dialogue between the agency and the stakeholders. If the
costs have gone up, then the agency must open up a comment period to
hear the stakeholders and consider possible modifications or
alternatives to reduce the cost and increase the benefits. We do that
in Congress. Every time we pass a piece of legislation, we go back and
fine tune the legislation, and I think we need to do the same thing
here.
Again, we must not allow regulations to run out of control. We should
hold agencies accountable. This amendment will bring transparency and
begin those conversations between stakeholders and the agencies.
Again, I thank Congressman Graves for this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman
from Texas, with whom I worked closely in developing this amendment,
which was legislation we introduced last year and which had dozens of
bipartisan cosponsors.
In summary, this is an Article I issue. This ensures that when an
agency tells Congress, they tell the American public that when the
regulation is going to cost a certain amount to comply with, they are
held accountable to that. This is about accountability. This is about
transparency.
My friend from Georgia mentioned that this was ``busywork.'' Mr.
Chairman, I want you to think about that for a minute.
This applies to major rules that are estimated to cost in excess of
$100 million to comply with, and they find it offensive that we ask
them to look back one time every 5 years for rules that cost American
families over $100 million to comply with every single year?
I am offended by that, and I am sure that millions and millions of
American families are offended by that as well.
It is all summarized by this, Mr. Chairman: since 2009, for the first
time in recorded history, we have had a net loss in small businesses in
the United States. Regulations are hidden taxes that impact our
businesses, that impact our employment opportunities, and that drive
jobs to other countries.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that my
friends on the other side of the aisle, in their quest to satisfy the
big businesses that fund these campaigns, don't like regulations that
protect the health, safety, and well-being of Americans, including
children, including the elderly, the weak, the sick. They are trying to
get rid of the Affordable Care Act; trying to kill those regulations;
trying to kill regulations on Dodd-Frank, which is protecting people
from financial ruin by Wall Street barons.
This is an incessant march toward a deregulatory environment. We
can't let it continue unabated. We must protest. We must speak out. We
must do the right thing to protect the people of this
[[Page H354]]
country. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chabot). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. 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 33, line 10, strike ``agencies and'' and insert
``agencies,''.
Page 33, line 11, insert after ``easy to understand,'' the
following: ``and issues guidance in a manner sufficient to
provide at least 90 days for affected entities to take steps
to comply with such guidance,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his help
and leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to make an already very good
bill even better. Regulators regulate. That is what they do. Regulators
regulate businesses, large and small, State and local governments,
nonprofits, individuals, et cetera. These regulated entities often rely
on guidance from agencies to become compliant with a new rule or
regulation; but, occasionally, this guidance is offered far too late in
the process, leaving entities with the decision to either move forward
without guidance and face possible penalties, litigation, losses, or to
wait until guidance is offered and then scramble to implement changes
before the deadline, increasing the likelihood for mistakes and
failure.
My amendment seeks to ensure guidance is offered and available in a
timely manner by instructing agencies to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs to issue guidance at least 90 days before a rule or
a regulation goes into effect so that affected entities have time to
comply.
As an example, companies recently experienced the hardships of late
guidance from HHS through CMS. There is a company in Iowa and similar
companies from around America that produce forms, using post acute
healthcare reimbursements, including skilled nursing and home care,
both of which receive funding through Medicare.
CMS is responsible for setting rules for the reimbursement forms.
Okay. Fine. CMS specified a new set of rules for forms going into
effect at the beginning of the year. Okay. Great. This company and
other companies waited for CMS guidance before printing and sending
reimbursement forms to its customers, and this company waited and
waited and waited; but 3 weeks before the effective date, this company
and others like it hadn't heard anything from CMS on guidance or
directions--crickets.
{time} 1615
So at this point, they had to make a business decision. That is the
reality. Either wait for CMS and fail to have the required forms to its
customers in time for the new year or send the forms to print, cross
your fingers, say a prayer, roll the dice, and hope they will later be
found in compliance.
They sent the forms to print knowing full well they would eat the
cost if the forms did not comply. Losses, penalties, litigation, a
soiled reputation--those are the real things the lack of guidance and
notice causes. Thankfully, everything worked out in this situation, but
in other situations, things haven't worked out. A few days after they
sent the forms to print, CMS finally approved.
However, this situation illustrates a broader problem that occurs too
often transcending in other instances through the economy and needs to
be addressed. We need to make sure that when we give agencies the power
to effectively write law, we ensure compliance guidelines are clear-
cut, timely, and enforcement is fair.
Allowing the regulatory process to continue as is and agencies to
issue needed guidance at the last minute, we only further burden
Americans in their organizations, businesses, these individuals in our
districts.
So I want to be clear what the amendment does not do. This amendment
does not change a rule or regulation in any way. It does not direct the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to do or speak to anything
else other than the timeliness issue I just described. It is pretty
plain language. My amendment says, when guidance is forthcoming, it
arrives in a timely manner.
Mr. Chairman, it is past time for Congress to rein in and approve
this process so our constituents aren't left with uncertainty, wringing
their hands waiting for Washington, and can, instead, get to work.
Let's get this fixed right now, Mr. Chairman.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend Mr. Young's
amendment which establishes a 90-day compliance period for guidance
documents when, in the underlying legislation, it makes clear that
during any compliance period for guidance it is nonbinding. So I rise
in opposition to this amendment which imposes an unnecessary and
burdensome 90-day waiting period for agencies to issue guidance
documents.
Importantly, as a form of nonlegislative rule, guidance documents do
not have the force of law and are not subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements. Section 104 of H.R. 5
already clarifies that these documents are not legally binding and may
not be relied upon by an agency as legal grounds for agency action.
This provision additionally requires agencies to make this document
available to the public and provide a plain and prominent statement
that the document is not legally binding. Given the requirements that
already exist in current law and the additional requirements imposed by
title I of this bill, it is difficult to ascertain why an additional
90-day compliance period for guidance that is not legally binding is
warranted.
Furthermore, in all cases, regulated entities have ample opportunity
to challenge rules, including guidance, as ``arbitrary or capricious''
under the Administrative Procedure Act where an agency lacks statutory
authority to issue the guidance or the guidance is otherwise legally
unsound.
Indeed, as Justice Elena Kagan noted in 2015 in Paralyzed Veterans v.
Mortgage Bankers, the APA contains a variety of constraints on agency
decisionmaking, the arbitrary and capricious standard being among the
most notable.
Accordingly, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I support his amendment. Agency guidance is a crucial part of our
regulatory system--flexible because not legally binding, but needed so
regulated entities can understand how best to comply with agency rules.
Guidance, if it responds in a timely way to the regulated community's
need for it, helps everything to function smoothly. But one thing that
does not help is agency heel-dragging in the issuance of guidance as
the regulated community comes up against legal or practical deadlines
by which it needs to implement compliance measures. Too often agencies
hurry up and wait to produce needed guidance, then tell those who
waited long and hard for it to hurry up and respond, pronto. That can
leave very little time for the regulated community to act before
deadlines hit.
[[Page H355]]
To solve this problem, the amendment offers a simple but much-needed
solution. It requires that, within ``good-guidance'' guidelines to be
issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under the
bill, there be guidelines for agencies generally to assure at least 90
days for regulated entities to institute measures consistent with newly
issued guidelines.
I support the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES
SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) that will result
in a reduced incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma
attacks, or respiratory disease in children or seniors. The
provisions of law amended by this Act, as in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply
to such rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to
this troubling bill, a bill that proposes to erode the separation of
power safeguards in the United States Constitution. My amendment would
exempt from this bill rules that protect children and older Americans
from cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory
disease so that such rules are not irresponsibly delayed or denied.
H.R. 5 unreasonably condemns every major rule, no matter its subject,
to an early bureaucratic demise at the hands of the special interests.
Many laws and regulations that are adopted and developed to protect the
public health and protect costly chronic diseases really shouldn't be
put on the back burner just because special interests can oftentimes
muck up the gears of government here in Washington.
For example, the Clean Air Act, which has been in place for over 40
years, has been one of the most effective public health laws on the
books. In 1970, at a time when smog was dense and visible in our cities
and towns and industrial areas, our leaders took an important step to
protect the public health and regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants by adopting the Clean Air Act, with only one ``nay'' vote
here in the entire Congress. Since then, agency rules and regulations
have been adopted to implement the act based upon the best science.
Those vital policies have improved our health, protected all Americans
from harmful air pollution, such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur
dioxide, and particle matter.
This Republican bill, H.R. 5, largely, would end our ability to
develop future safeguards for clean air. Toxic pollutants like ozone,
which is a major component of smog, are linked to asthma, lung and
heart disease, and result in thousands of deaths every year and up to 1
million days of missed school. Our kids are particularly susceptible to
this type of pollution because their lungs are still developing, and
they are more likely to spend long periods outdoors, placing them at
higher risk.
The American Lung Association states that inhaling smog pollution is
like getting a sunburn on your lungs and often results in immediate
breathing trouble. The University of South Florida's Department of
Child & Family Studies did a study in 2014 and said, in the State of
Florida alone, there were 48,674 asthma emergency room visits by
children and over 6,500 asthma hospitalizations.
Any American who has been alive since the adoption of the Clean Air
Act in the 1970s has an appreciation for the benefits of clean air.
America is stronger and Americans are healthier because of the Clean
Air Act.
Let's not go backwards. This bill, if adopted, would undermine the
Clean Air Act and so many other policies that lift and protect our
neighbors.
We still have work to do when it comes to the air that we breathe
because, even with all of the progress we have made, many working class
communities continue to bear the brunt of environmental pollution
because oftentimes the only homes that are affordable are located near
industrial sites. According to the NAACP, 78 percent of African
Americans live within 30 miles of an industrial power plant and 71
percent of African Americans live in counties that violate Federal air
pollution standards; and the Environmental Defense Fund found that our
Latino neighbors are three times more likely to die from asthma, often
for the same reasons.
If you establish such barriers to cleaning our air, it is not only
our families and neighbors that will suffer, but it will also be the
American economy. Far from being an economic burden, clean air
protections in the U.S. have a great track record, demonstrating that
economic growth and pollution reduction can go hand in hand. Since
1970, we have cut harmful air pollution by about 70 percent, and the
U.S. economy has more than tripled.
I urge my colleagues to side with hardworking American families and
not corporate polluters who love this bill. Don't prioritize polluter
profits over science and the health and safety of the public,
especially the most vulnerable among us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Young of Iowa). The gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment would strike from
the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the core judicial
review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. The resulting
legislation, rather than restore an adequate framework of checks and
balances against agency overreach and abuse, would perpetrate and
perpetuate features among the worst of our current, runaway regulatory
system. We cannot complete true regulatory reform without restoring to
the judicial branch the vigorous powers of judicial review the
amendment would strike.
In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's critical
rulemaking reforms all rules to reduce the incidence of cancer,
premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory diseases in
children and seniors.
All of us support the reduction of morbidity and mortality among
children and seniors. Rules to advance these goals, done properly,
contribute substantially to our Nation's health and well-being, but the
bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those
goals. It simply assures the agencies issuing these types of rules--and
all agency rulemaking in general--will avoid unnecessary and
overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less costly regulation and
guidance when necessary.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on the Castor amendment to protect children's health, to
protect the health of our older neighbors. We value the air that we
breathe.
H.R. 5 would inject unnecessary barriers into the ability of our
environmental agencies--heck, all of the agencies of government--to
protect us.
When it comes to the final bill itself, if you believe in checks and
balances as a foundation of our constitutionally-based government, I
urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I believe in the Constitution just like
everyone else does, and primarily we, as congressmen and congresswomen,
have
[[Page H356]]
a responsibility to make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats who have
no experience in a lot of the areas where they are making these laws.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. CICILLINE. 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 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES
SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to the
prevention of the transmission of foodborne illness or
assistance to domestic and foreign food facilities to meet
preventive-control requirements for safety, such as hazard
prevention practices in human and animal food processing,
packing, and storage facilities. The provisions of law
amended by this Act, as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today promises to
update the ways that agencies make and enforce their rules and
regulations. But in many ways, it is a solution in search of a problem.
When issuing a rule, Federal agencies must already adhere to rigorous
analytical process of considering alternatives, justifying the cost of
a rule, and considering input from stakeholders.
Within this framework, agencies have been granted the necessary
latitude to react quickly to urgent crises in consumer safety. It has
preserved the safety of our food and our drinking water and has
protected our families from defects in the products that we rely upon
every day. However, the passage of this bill would put that safety and
that protection at risk.
With H.R. 5, we are getting six reform bills rolled into one. This
sweeping regulatory bill would cumulatively add 60 new procedural and
analytical requirements to the agency rulemaking process, invite
frivolous litigation against agencies, empower special interests, and
emphasize cost-saving over public protection.
If enacted, H.R. 5 will needlessly create such an enormous burden on
the rulemaking process that it threatens to hamstring agencies and
discourage them from pursuing new rules at all. In its present form,
this bill endangers our Nation's environmental, public health,
workplace safety, and consumer financial security protections.
My amendment would offer critical protection by exempting rules
pertaining to the prevention of the transmission of foodborne illness
or assistance to food facilities to meet preventive-control
requirements for safety.
Protecting consumers from dangerous food contamination is a worthy
goal in and of itself. And this amendment would go even further by
protecting jobs and businesses. For example, in 2015, Blue Bell
Creameries suffered a deadly listeria contamination crisis and had to
recall 8 million gallons of ice cream. After the company shut down most
of its production, Blue Bell was forced to lay off 1,450 employees from
their jobs, or 37 percent of their workforce, and an additional 1,400
employees were furloughed.
Chipotle is also still reeling from various outbreaks of E. coli,
salmonella, and norovirus over 2015 and 2016, which caused widespread
panic among customers and the company's shareholders. Despite marketing
efforts to repair its reputation, Chipotle's sales have steadily
declined, and it plans to open fewer stores in 2017. This, in turn, had
a domino effect on Chipotle's paper bowl supplier who laid off 5
percent of its employees because of decreased demand from Chipotle.
Afterward, both Blue Bell and Chipotle took aggressive remedial
steps, such as conducting deep cleansing of equipment and facilities,
changing food preparation procedures, hiring food safety consultants,
training employees, and temporarily suspending operations. The FDA
responded by proposing proactive rules, such as having manufacturers
come up with a plan to identify potential food safety problems and how
to respond to them. The FDA also proposed a rule to establish standards
for growing, harvesting, packing, and handling produce.
Both these rules could greatly assist businesses in minimizing future
food contamination and having to deal with the economic aftermath of an
outbreak. However, under H.R. 5 in its current form, similar such FDA
rules could be delayed by years or halted entirely. We can't afford to
put consumer safety and our economy at risk while Congress entangles
any real possibility for immediate and preventative action.
I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to ensure
that we protect the public and health and safety of our constituents.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Like the previous amendment, the gentleman's amendment
would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and
core judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act.
Faced with a runaway administrative state, we must not gut the bill's
crucial reinforcements of judicial checks and balances against agency
overreach and abuse. For this reason alone, the amendment should be
rejected.
In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's long-needed
rulemaking reforms numerous types of food safety regulations. All of us
support food safety. But the bill does nothing to frustrate the
protection of food safety. In fact, it clearly calls upon regulatory
agencies to achieve their statutory objectives in this and all areas.
Beyond that, it simply ensures that agency rulemaking will avoid
unnecessary and overreaching regulations and produce smarter, less
costly regulation and guidance when necessary.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
his comments, but the assertion that this does nothing to frustrate or
jeopardize food safety is not true. This creates 60 new procedural and
analytical requirements to agency action, and that will invite
frivolous litigation, empower special interests, emphasize cost saving
over public protection, and make implementation of these rules almost
impossible.
It is important to remember, Mr. Chairman, when issuing a rule,
Federal agencies already are required to adhere to a rigorous
analytical process of considering alternatives, justifying the cost of
the rule, and considering input from stakeholders. I gave two examples
in my earlier comments that demonstrate that there is a real role for
the Federal Government in the implementation of rules to protect food
safety. There are real consequences not only to the individuals harmed
but to our economy by these sorts of events. This bill will not only
frustrate that, in many instances, it will make it impossible. I urge
my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my friend and
NATO member. We have traveled together.
A lot of the delay now is because of the agencies and how long they
take to make decisions. With the premise behind our bills combined,
agencies come
[[Page H357]]
up with an idea that they think will improve the quality of life, and
that is what they should be doing. But then they immediately send it to
us in the House, in Congress, and then we make the determination as to
whether it is good law or it is bad law and apply it that way. We
certainly have the time in the House, and I am sure the Senate has the
time, too, to address these matters quickly and not delay it as long as
the agency has been delaying making rules.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARINO. 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 Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES
SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to
significantly improving the employment, retention, and wages
of workforce participants, especially those with significant
barriers to employment, such as persons with disabilities or
limited English proficiency. The provisions of law amended by
this Act, as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment to H.R. 5 which would exempt from the bill rules that improve
the employment retention and wages of workforce participants,
especially those with significant barriers to employment.
When President Obama took office in 2009, he inherited the worse
economic depression since the Great Depression. Since then, President
Obama's ``North Star'' on domestic policy has long been to make the
economy work for the middle class and for those fighting to join it.
Notwithstanding historic austerity levels and a Republican Congress
more interested in winning elections than putting Americans back to
work or increasing wages, President Obama has largely achieved this
goal, while rescuing the auto industry and signing tax cuts for middle
class persons, as opposed to just simply big business.
According to the leading economic data, private sector businesses
have created more than 15 million new jobs. The unemployment rate has
dropped well below 5 percent to the lowest point in nearly a decade,
wages are rising, and the poverty rate has dropped to the lowest point
since 1968. And more people have health insurance than ever before.
This has all occurred during an administration that is pro
environment, pro clean energy, pro workplace safety, pro medical care,
pro Medicare, pro Medicaid, pro Social Security. In fact, during this
time, our Nation has doubled its production of clean energy and reduced
carbon emissions faster than any other advanced nation.
Notwithstanding this progress, there is still much work to be done
for millions of Americans in every part of our country who are out of
work, underemployed, or have not seen significant wage growth
postrecession. But they should understand it was the Republicans who
caused that to happen by not wanting to work with the President and
members of the Democratic Party to make things better for working
people in this country.
Congress should be working tirelessly now across party lines to find
solutions to persistent unemployment and stagnant wages, such as a
public infrastructure investment agenda that will increase productivity
and domestic output while turning the page on our historic
underinvestment in our Nation's roads, bridges, and educational
institutions.
Unfortunately, this bill, H.R. 5, is not one of those solutions. The
Regulatory Accountability Act is nothing short of a train wreck for
critical public health and safety protections that ensure that our air
is clean, our water is pure, and that our workplace, vehicles, homes,
and consumer products are safe.
Freeing corporations from the costs of protecting Americans against
harmful activity is not the right path forward to increasing employment
and wages for all. It is a giveaway to the corporate sector that
supports them. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. This amendment would strike from the bill the Separation
of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review provisions
of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It, too, should be rejected for
those reasons.
In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemakings
reforms numerous types of rule related to employment and wages. But
once again, the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas.
On the contrary, it would produce better rules, rules that are smarter
and less costly, freeing resources for job creation and higher wages. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Mr. Johnson, the ranking
member of the subcommittee for his leadership on these issues, and the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for his persistent
leadership, having gone over this bill any number of times. Let me
mention that Mr. Johnson's amendment is vital because it deals with
vulnerable workforce individuals, individuals with disabilities,
limited English proficiency, and other requirements. And I would beg to
differ with my good friend from Pennsylvania, 70 different elements of
criteria that you will put these regulations through, you are simply
trying to implode those who advocate for the rights of workers, unions,
and others. Therefore, I would question the viability of trying to
obstruct, helping these vulnerable workers. This is a very good
amendment.
Let me be very clear. Since 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6
million jobs. From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by
5.2 percent. We know that, as Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers notes, demographic changes in labor force
participation, primarily driven by a large increase in retirement by
baby boomers that began in 2008, has consistently weighed on employment
growth. It is quite different from when President Reagan was in. The
labor force participation rate is low because of these variables.
{time} 1645
These regulations are not going to improve that participation. The
Obama recovery has been slower because, under Reagan, we realized the
baby boomers were in their prime. Now the baby boomers are retiring.
We need to provide opportunities for younger workers, minority
workers, workers with disabilities; and this, H.R. 5, with all of these
hoops that the regulation has to go through that are protecting or
empowering workers or increasing the opportunities for workers is
certainly going to thwart that growth.
You cannot deny that this administration has seen growth with
200,000-plus jobs per month over a series of
[[Page H358]]
years. I would argue that Mr. Johnson's amendment is a strong
amendment. It promotes job growth, and it gives opportunities to many
who are vulnerable in the workforce.
I ask my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.
Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues have made several statements
concerning economic activity that invite fact checks:
First, they argue that the labor force participation rate is
historically low, but as we all know, the labor force participation is
affected by both long term trends and short term policies. As Jason
Furman, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, notes,
``demograpic changes in labor force participation--primarily driven by
a large increase in retirement by baby boomers that began in 2008--have
consistently weighed on employment growth.''
Second, they argue that the Obama recovery has been slower than the
economic recovery under the Reagan Administration. But this argument is
laughable. President Reagan's recovery benefited from the fact that
many baby boomers were in the prime working years while President
Obama's recovery has taken place in front of the backdrop of an aging
U.S. population. More importantly, the economic lows of the Reagan
Administration are not comparable to the mortgage-foreclosure crisis,
which resulted in higher unemployment than any other period since the
Great Depression.
Finally, despite many bald assertions, my Republican colleagues have
not satisfactorily explained how H.R. 5 will create a single job or
responded to President Obama's unimpeachable jobs record. In fact,
despite, strong economic headwinds and years of Republican
obstructionism during the majority of his presidency, the U.S. economy
is 11.5 percent larger than its peak before the 2008 economic crisis as
of the third quarter of 2016.
Since early 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs.
From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 5.2 percent,
the fastest annual growth on record, and the United States saw its
largest one-year drop in the poverty rate since the 1960s.
In closing, there is little evidence supporting my Republican
colleagues' claims and if there is any doubt that the H.R. 5 will
undermine workforce participation, my colleagues should support my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I simply would add that I ask my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
As far as the jobs increase, or lack thereof, that my colleague
speaks of, we have had the slowest growth rate in jobs in the history
of this country. There are millions of people that are unemployed that
are not seeking unemployment benefits, and they are not taken into
consideration in the unemployment rate because it is much higher than
it is; and the mean family income is at a low as far back as 14 years
ago.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARINO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
Would the gentleman not count automation and technology as one of the
elements and, as well, the idea of the retiring of baby boomers as part
of the issue of growth? And can we not work together to question those
particular elements so that we can collectively and collaboratively
promote job growth?
Mr. MARINO. Well, first of all, I would certainly enjoy working on
job growth with the gentlewoman. We have worked on issues in the past.
But the gentlewoman forgets about the technology that has created
jobs. People have to write those programs. People have to build that
hardware. They have to come up with very intense, very intricate ways
to make the machinery, continue updating the software. My daughter is a
software major in college, and the jobs there are abundantly available.
So the jobs are there, but what I am hearing from people in my
district and across the country is the regulations that have been
imposed, not only by this administration but other administrations as
well, are crushing particularly our small businesses.
So if we can step back and eliminate these job-crushing regulations
and take into consideration the economics involved, we are going to
create more jobs, we are going to protect people, and we are going to
protect the health of people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Ruiz
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to H.R. 5 at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES
SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to the
safety of children's products or toys. The provisions of law
amended by this Act, as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ruiz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 5, which will ensure children's products are safe for use.
In 2015, there were an estimated 254,200 toy-related injuries treated
in emergency departments across the Nation. Tragically, 15 children
were killed in toy-related incidents that same year. As an emergency
medicine physician, I have treated children who have fallen victim to
these accidents.
H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act, prioritizes cheaper
alternatives for companies over the safety of our children. To me, this
is unconscionable. It is wrong. It is not the direction we should be
taking our Nation.
My amendment to H.R. 5 will ensure that an agency rule regarding the
safety of children's products or toys is not delayed by the
bureaucratic hurdles that H.R. 5 imposes on Federal agencies. My simple
amendment provides a straightforward safety net for our sons and
daughters across the country.
Our children should always be our priority. The facts are clear: a
vote against my amendment is a vote to put a company's bottom line
above the safety of our children. So I urge all of my colleagues to
support this commonsense amendment to protect our children.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, like other carve-out amendments just
offered, this amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of
Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review protections of
the Regulatory Accountability Act. It should be rejected. We should not
be settling for weak judicial review that produces rubber stamps of
agency action. We should be voting for the strong judicial review
reform in the bill that prevents judicial rubber stamps.
Beyond that, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms
children's toys and product safety rules. But again, the bill does
nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will produce better
rules, rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for
job creation and higher wages. Smarter rules are precisely what we need
to protect children's health and safety, and more jobs and higher wages
are what are needed to help families provide for their children.
[[Page H359]]
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize what is at stake here. We
are talking about delay or forgoing regulations that protect our
children, regulations that give parents like me the peace of mind that
when I buy a bottle for my daughter, Sky, I know it is safe for her to
use, and that when I buy a product that is labeled age-appropriate for
my daughter, Sage, I can reasonably expect it will not contain small
parts that Sage could swallow and send her to the emergency room with
an obstructed esophagus that will require emergency surgery.
For me as a dad it is personal, and for our Nation it is essential.
This is commonsense legislation.
I urge my colleagues to put aside partisanship, politics, and
corporate greed and to think about the children in their lives who
could be harmed by this bill. Vote ``yes'' on my amendment to protect
children and save lives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the gentleman does not have
the market cornered on worrying about the safety of our children. I
think anybody in this room who has children has just as much concern
for our children.
What his amendment does is gut--it guts--regulations, and what our
amendments do--and the way we should be handling these as Congress
making any laws--will improve the quality of life and improve the
protections.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUIZ. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES
SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to
workplace health or safety at mining facilities which are
subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or workplaces which are subject to the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.), and which is necessary to prevent or reduce the
incidence of work-related traumatic injury, cancer, or
irreversible lung disease. The provisions of law amended by
this Act, as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Regulatory
Accountability Act, H.R. 5, if adopted, would exempt regulations
proposed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration or the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, MSHA and OSHA, which are
needed to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer,
or irreversible lung disease.
I am deeply concerned that this legislation would impose layers of
unnecessary procedures to the rulemaking process and provide incentives
for frivolous litigation, while hindering workplace safety agencies
trying to help keep workers safe.
Current procedures that govern OSHA's rulemaking already involve an
extensive review process and stakeholder engagement from small business
review panels, risk assessments, economic feasibility determinations,
public hearings, and multiple opportunities for public comment.
According to the GAO, to meet these requirements, it takes OSHA 7
years to issue a new safety standard. In fact, it required 18 years for
OSHA to update a rule that reduces exposure to beryllium, a metal that
causes irreversible lung disease, even though there was broad agreement
between employers and unions on the new standard.
H.R. 5 imposes 60 additional procedural steps in order to issue a new
rule, on top of extensive layers of review already required by the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Data
Quality Act, and numerous executive orders. The goal of adding these
layers is obvious: to tie agencies such as OSHA and MSHA in red tape so
they can't do their jobs protecting workers and improving workplace
safety.
One especially troubling part of the bill would require a super-
mandate that requires agencies to use the least cost alternative
instead of the most protective rule. Nobody favors excessive cost, but
this requirement overrides the carefully balanced requirements in OSHA
that require life and limb must be fully protected, provided that the
safety requirements are technically and economically feasible. That is
the present law.
The question that needs to be asked is: The least cost to whom and at
what cost to others? What is the least cost mandate protection of
workers? Is the least cost mandate secondary to worker safety in order
to limit cost to corporations? And then again, who decides?
Under the bill, some regulations could be delayed until the end of
any litigation, the final determination in a lawsuit which, with trials
and appeals, could take years. The bill prohibits the rules from going
into effect until the end of the litigation. Now, normally, you can get
an injunction, but that would require the court to consider the
likelihood of success of the lawsuit and the potential harm done if the
injunction is issued or not issued.
Under H.R. 5, rules could exceed the least cost alternative, but only
if the agency demonstrates that the additional benefits outweigh the
additional costs. This eliminates a well-established test under OSHA
which requires ``the most productive standard which is feasible,'' and
that standard obviously just invites litigation which will delay the
final rule for years.
The problem with the least cost framework is that it would tilt the
playing field to ensure the least cost for industry but at the expense
of workers and the American public. According to expert witnesses
before the Judiciary Committee, this bill will add another 2 or 3 years
to the regulatory process, and these delays will allow preventable
injuries and occupational diseases to continue unabated.
Mr. Chairman, the premise behind this legislation is based on the
erroneous assumption that regulations issued over the last 8 years have
obstructed job growth; however, employment statistics do not bear this
out. Since the end of the recession, the U.S. economy has gained almost
16 million jobs, while establishing the longest consecutive months of
job growth on record.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to ensure that, even if
the bill passes, OSHA and MSHA will be able to prevent or reduce the
incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, and irreversible lung disease.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect what my friend on the
other side of the aisle has to say, but, again, I respectfully
disagree.
Once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike
from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the
essential judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability
Act. That would have but one effect: to preserve the freedom to run
riot that Washington bureaucrats have enjoyed for decades
[[Page H360]]
as they have racked up roughly $2 trillion in regulatory burdens on the
American people.
The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms
workplace safety rules issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health
Administration to reduce traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease.
I would urge my colleagues to read the bill and listen more closely.
The bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will
produce better rules, smarter rules, less costly rules. That will free
up resources for desperately needed job creation, meaning more workers
will have more safe workplaces in which to earn a living.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will preserve the ability of the
executive branch to promulgate rules, which will save lives and avoid
preventable deaths and disease. A vote for the amendment is a vote for
a safe workplace. I would hope that the amendment would be adopted and
save lives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Tonko
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES
SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code) made pursuant to
the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act, or the amendments made by that Act. The provisions of
law amended by this Act, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, last May, Democrats and Republicans came
together to pass the first major environmental law in decades, the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Before
this reform, it had been widely acknowledged that the Toxic Substances
Control Act, or TSCA, was broken. The law was hampered by litigation
since shortly after it was passed in 1976, and was rendered almost
completely ineffective.
It has only been 7 months since over 400 Members voted for this
reform, which requires a number of new rulemakings by the EPA.
A primary motivation to reform TSCA was to remove procedural hurdles
that were preventing the EPA from regulating dangerous chemicals. But
the bill before us today would impose new, unnecessary obstacles in the
rulemaking process, which will impede agencies that already are
struggling with shrinking budgets and time constraints.
Even some of the Members that had concerns with TSCA reform, myself
included, would agree that it is imperative that these rulemakings go
forward efficiently in order to protect public health and to give the
private sector the certainty that it asks for when it supported the
reform effort.
Unlike 233 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I did not
vote for this bill; but I do firmly believe that the rulemakings
required by this law must be done effectively and quickly.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today would undermine that process.
For the record, I do not believe any amendments will fix the underlying
bill, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill later today.
While Congress has moved on to other priorities, the EPA has been
hard at work implementing the law as Congress intended. Since being
signed into law in June, the EPA has already put into place new
processes to review new chemicals, which is exactly what this House
instructed them to do.
A number of rulemakings will soon get underway focused on how the EPA
prioritizes chemicals for evaluation and how it will conduct risk
evaluations. Other rules regarding the EPA's chemical inventory and the
process for collecting fees will also be needed.
The Members that worked on TSCA reform deferred many of these
procedural decisions to the EPA because we lacked the expertise
necessary to determine every detail of the most effective, streamlined
regulatory process.
We are not toxicologists or chemists, so we empowered the scientists
that do this work to receive public feedback and create regulations,
based on congressional intent, within a reasonable amount of time.
It is clear that an overwhelming number of Members of the House
believe that the EPA needed these tools when we passed the Lautenberg
bill to fix the EPA's chemical program. Let's not tie the agency's
hands as it seeks effective implementation. We have seen what happens
with a broken chemical safety law. Let's not go back to that.
I would also caution against the bill's requirement to choose the
least costly regulatory option. People familiar with TSCA will know the
term ``least burdensome,'' which required the EPA to select the
restriction that was demonstrated to be the least burdensome to address
identified risks.
In practice, this requirement was so onerous that the EPA was not
even able to restrict known carcinogens like asbestos. The Lautenberg
bill ended this requirement. Let's not reinstate this problem for our
agencies.
Personally, I do not believe my amendment goes far enough. We should
exempt every major environmental law responsible for protecting
Americans' air, water, and land from this bill.
We have seen in many cases that these rules do not hurt the economy.
They protect public health and provide much greater benefits to society
than costs.
Many of our bedrock environmental statutes require agencies to review
and update their rules periodically. Members of Congress should not
prevent an agency from simply doing the job that is required of it
under the law.
But in terms of this amendment and TSCA reform, Congress knew exactly
what would be asked of the EPA in order to carry out the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act when we passed it
by a vote of 403-12 just a few months ago. We cannot tell the EPA to do
something and then tie its hands and expect it to get it done.
This amendment is simple. Do Members of this body want to give our
regulatory agencies the tools they need to implement the laws that
Congress has passed? And, in my view, it should not matter if these
laws were passed 6 months ago or 60 years ago. Or should we make it
more difficult to implement effective rulemakings, even when there is
legislative consensus about the need for them?
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, one last time, my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers
Restoration Act and the judicial review provisions of the Regulatory
Accountability Act. One last time, that attempt should be rejected.
[[Page H361]]
We need a strong judiciary, not a supine one, to stand up to agency
overreach and abuse and protect the liberty and property of the America
from the long hands of Washington's restless bureaucrats.
The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms
rules issued under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act. Chemical safety is important to all of us. Congress worked
hard on chemical safety legislation. But it is smarter regulations,
supported by sounder science, at less cost that will best produce
chemical safety under that act. That is precisely the kind of
regulation that will happen once the 21st century rulemaking reforms in
the Regulatory Accountability Act become law.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, 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 New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 42, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 3
on page 45.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, today, this Republican Congress is taking
a short break from trying to destroy our healthcare system to try to
destroy the rest of the Federal Government.
H.R. 5 is nothing more than Republicans seeking to micromanage the
regulatory process to death. They claim they only want good government.
In reality, they want no government at all. They want to wrap Federal
agencies in so much red tape that they won't be able to move to protect
our health, our safety, or our natural resources.
Language in title III tries to prevent Federal land managers from
actually managing Federal lands. This language would make land managers
jump through the same procedural hoops over and over again just to put
a new land management plan in place. These new requirements are
completely redundant, which is, of course, the point.
Federal land management plans already go through extensive review,
including by the public, before they are ever even implemented. One way
we know this is that the House Republicans complain constantly about
how long it takes Federal agencies to come up with a decision. Yet,
here they are claiming that this Republican Congress knows best how our
public lands and resources should be managed.
Let's stop and look at the record. Last Tuesday, almost every single
Republican Member of this House voted for a change in our House
standing rules to calculate the value of all Federal lands as zero for
accounting purposes. Yes, House Republicans agree that all Federal
lands are essentially worthless.
Then, on Thursday of this week, 229 House Republicans voted against
an amendment I offered to another bill to declare that climate change
is real. Yes, 95 percent of House Republicans voted to deny a settled
scientific fact.
Yet, here we are today with the same House Republicans who deny
science; the same House Republicans who think public lands are
worthless, claiming they know how to manage these public lands.
Science deniers and those who think our public lands have no value
have no credibility when they bring legislation to this floor claiming
that they want to improve public land management. As with health care,
as with so many things, they don't want to improve it; they want to
destroy it.
Congressional Republicans have proved themselves completely incapable
of building or preserving anything. They are only interested in tearing
things down, starting with health, safety, and environmental
protections for our people and our communities.
This bill would needlessly tip the scales in favor of corporate
polluters who want to be in power to ruin our public lands, taking the
resources and the profits for themselves, leaving the American people
with the mess and the consequences.
My amendment strikes the section of this bill intended to turn our
public land management process into nothing more than a board meeting
of the American Petroleum Institute.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, a longstanding position of the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has been that
land management plans developed by the Forest Service and by the Bureau
of Land Management are rules and that they are subject to analysis
under the RFA. The same conclusion--that a land resource management
plan is a rule--has been reached by the Government Accountability
Office.
Given the potentially significant consequences to small businesses
that rely on public lands and small communities that border those
lands, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management should
assess the impacts of their plans on these small entities. That is all
this does.
We are saying: How is this going to affect small businesses? Seventy
percent of the new jobs created in America are created by small
businesses? Should we care about what the bureaucrats are doing, how it
affects those folks that are creating all these jobs?
Common sense says yes, we ought to do that.
This bill already includes a reform to prepare those agencies to
prepare regulatory flexibility analyses when they are developing
changes to resource management plans to determine how small businesses
and small communities would be affected.
{time} 1715
Striking this provision from the bill would do away with a needed
reform for small businesses, such as farmers and ranchers and their
small communities, especially those located in the Western United
States, which contains the vast majority of Federal lands.
I would also note that my esteemed colleague talks about Republicans
trying to destroy health care in this country. That is obviously
absurd. We are trying to save health care. We are trying to make sure
that Americans aren't forced to pay a heck of a lot more and have
higher deductions, things they can't afford. Plans right now they are
in, they are paying for plans and oftentimes get zero health care out
of those plans because the deductibles are now so high under ObamaCare
that they can't even use it.
I think there are a whole lot of people, when this was forced through
this Congress on a purely partisan vote by my colleagues, the Democrats
at that time, and by this President, there were a lot of Republicans
who would have loved to have joined with them to do something to help
people get health care who didn't have it. That is a worthy cause. But
that could have been done without screwing up everybody else's health
care in this country. That is what they failed to do when they did
this. We are hoping, in a bipartisan way, we can work together to
improve health care for lots of folks in this country. We will see if
that is going to work out or not.
I would also note that there is nobody on this side of the aisle who
thinks we need no government at all, we need no regulations, we need no
rules; but we don't want to overregulate the job creators in this
country so that they can't create jobs. Those jobs
[[Page H362]]
that people don't get, those are real people; or people who get knocked
out of that employment are real people, and they have families. We
ought to be supporting them. Overregulation kills those jobs.
I would finally note, relative to climate change, what we are saying
is that if we are going to do something, let's do it in a smart manner.
Let's not try to save some things and then knock thousands, probably
millions of Americans out of their jobs. There is a smart way of doing
it and there is a wrong way of doing it. We would like to do it the
smart way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my esteemed
colleague. We have to get past the point where we are just talking
about repeal. As the President so eloquently said last night, if there
is something that is going to improve the health and well-being of the
American people relative to the Affordable Care Act, then bring it
forward. We all have been waiting patiently for the Republican majority
to bring something forward that not only repeals but replaces. We are
still waiting.
In terms of this amendment, the resource management plans are the
backbone for every action and approved use on BLM land. It is about
scoping. It is about public input, collaborative with State, local,
tribal, and user groups across the spectrum, and that is the process
that is in place now, a process that deserves to be continued,
ratified, and protected.
As far as the issue of climate change, the President eloquently said
last night that we should go forward on the issue of climate change,
putting science and reason as a priority on how we have that
discussion. Once the majority is prepared to deal with science and
reason, I think our side of the aisle is willing to do so as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 15 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Posey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
Mr. POSEY. 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 75, line 3, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 75, line 13, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 75, insert after line 13 the following:
``(D) a list of all influential scientific information
disseminated or expected to be disseminated by the agency
relating to the rule, including any peer review plans for the
information, including--
``(i) the date the information or peer review was or is
expected to be received by the agency;
``(ii) the date the information or peer review was
publically disclosed or is expected to be publically
disclosed, and, if that date is altered in subsequent
reports, a brief explanation for the change; and
``(iii) the Internet address of the information or peer
review completed and disclosed or of where the information or
peer review will be found, once completed and disclosed.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about transparency and
accountability. I rise to urge my colleagues to support it.
When an agency decides to write a rule or revise an old one, they are
sometimes required to share technical or scientific information to
support their proposal. For many years, scientific research has relied
upon the peer review process to ensure quality, integrity, and
objectivity of published work. Peer review is when scientists open
their research to the scrutiny of other experts in their field in order
to receive feedback, criticism, and ensure their conclusions are sound.
Unfortunately, when peer reviews of information return unfavorable
comments or raise unforeseen issues with the quality of work, some
agencies have acted to silence or hide the critiques. This, of course,
is bad science, and it results in bad public policy.
A recent example of this abuse occurred during a highly technical
rulemaking proceeding in which an agency relied heavily upon a single
study that many criticized as profoundly inadequate. The agency
commissioned two peer reviews of the study, which were completed and
returned 2 weeks into the comment period for the public. However, after
both scholars submitted highly critical reviews that echoed the
concerns of the many commentators, sadly, the agency withheld the
release of their work to the public. When the agency finally did
release the information as required by law, it was on the Friday that
marked the very last day of the comment period as part of a massive
document dump that buried the negative reviews.
The political cherry-picking of scientific information and
manipulation of the public record harms both the quality of Federal
regulations as well as the overall integrity of the rulemaking
proceeding. When Federal agencies distribute scientific research
supporting a proposed rule, the public and those affected by it deserve
to be certain that the science is of the highest quality and have a due
process right to comment meaningfully on the rules the science intends
to support.
My amendment will help protect this basic principle of good
government and ensure fairness in Federal rulemaking by requiring that
the public be provided with a clear timeline for disclosure of any
influential scientific information. The amendment will also require
agencies to offer an explanation if they revise the anticipated public
release date of peer reviews. Simply put, the Federal agency will no
longer be able to shield from the public view the existence of
information that is central to evaluating a proposed rule.
We cannot continue to allow the Federal agencies to march toward a
predetermined outcome at the expense of sound science and policy. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which requires that
an agency publish a list of scientific information relating to a rule
or expected to relate to the rule for each rule that an agency expects
to propose for the following year. I am concerned that this amendment
would create unintended consequences and operate as a one-way ratchet
to slow down and stop the rulemaking process by requiring burdensome
disclosures and creating options for procedural gridlock.
Agencies are already required to publish relevant data in support of
a rule during these rulemaking processes. Rules that do not appear to
be based on a reasoned analysis of relevant data may be vacated by
reviewing courts as arbitrary or capricious. Moreover, data acquired
through federally funded research is already accessible to researchers
who have a legitimate purpose.
I am also concerned that because this amendment does not define
scientific information or clarify the scope of this publication
requirement, peer reviewed materials may be taken out of context or
otherwise misused for political purposes. In so doing, this requirement
may chill feedback in the scientific community, undermine agencies'
ability to adopt the best rules possible, or otherwise manufacture
delays in the rulemaking process.
Any additional requirements in this area should strengthen, rather
than weaken, the process of science-based
[[Page H363]]
rulemaking. Given these concerns, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, most members of the public don't know what a
rule is. Rules are laws made by unelected and unaccountable
bureaucrats.
We collected 4 years' worth of Daily Registers in my office. Those
are executive orders, rules, proposed rules, changes to rules. I ask
people how big they think the stack is. I get answers 4 feet, 6 feet, 7
feet. Well, actually, in 4 years' time, the stack was 7 stacks over my
head--over 70 linear feet of laws made by unelectable, unaccountable
people.
The public thinks we make the laws. Most of the laws we don't make.
We allow unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make the laws; and the
very least we can do to protect the public is ensure that we have
transparency and accountability for their procedures, and that is
exactly what this amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, before I close, I include in the Record a letter from a
leading policy research institution that highlights the need for
legislation like my amendment that will improve the public peer review
process in our Federal agencies.
Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public
Policy Studies,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
Re Republic Peer Review.
Speaker Paul Ryan,
Washington, DC.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As both of
you know first-hand, developing and implementing good public
policy is no easy task. The issues before regulatory agencies
are often complex and technical, and therefore resolution
benefits from input from the best minds both in and out of
government. Yet, simply because someone writes a lengthy
report on a particular topic does not automatically mean that
their analysis is valid. No presumption of scientific
legitimacy can be afforded when making good public policy.
Instead, if policymakers are going to rely on a particular
study, then that study deserves to be critiqued first via
public peer review in a dispassionate manner to see if the
prescriptions and findings hold up. This public peer review
is exceedingly important when deciding controversial matters,
particularly because reviewing courts are loath to second-
guess expert administrative agency's policy decisions--
choosing instead to limit themselves only to questions of
law. (See, e.g., USTelecom v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 697 (D.C.
Cir. 2016) (we do not ``inquire whether `some or many
economists would disapprove of the [agency's] approach'
because `we do not sit as a panel of referees on a
professional economics journal, but as a panel of generalist
judges obliged to defer to a reasonable judgment by an agency
acting pursuant to congressionally delegated authority.''))
As such, the peer review process allows the public to better
hold government to account and results in more informed
policymaking.
Unfortunately, while the Office of Management and Budget
mandates peer review, many administrative agencies do not
take the peer review process seriously. By way of example, I
am attaching an op-ed I wrote in The Hill last year
demonstrating how the Federal Communications Commission
flagrantly violated the public's due process rights by hiding
until the very last moments the highly-critical results of
the agency's peer review of an outside economic study which
the agency intended to be the foundational document to impose
price regulation for Business Data Services. By any account,
such behavior is not an example of ``good'' government.
Legislation to improve the public peer review process at
federal agencies is therefore both welcome and necessary.
Sincerely,
Lawrence J. Spiwak,
President, The Phoenix Center.
____
[From The Hill, July 7 , 2016]
The FCC's Lack of Respect for Due Process, Part II
(By Lawrence J. Spiwak)
Since Tom Wheeler took over the chairmanship of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), we have seen one assault
after another on American's procedural due process rights. In
addition to the well-documented improprieties with the White
House during the Open Internet debate, Wheeler, among other
transgressions, has attempted to force nonprofits to reveal
their donors in strict violation of Supreme Court precedent,
hired advocates who had filed in significant FCC dockets as
an interested party to come into the commission to supervise
those very dockets, and attempted to hold a FCC ``town hall''
in which he had invited an outside party to participate and
comment on a yet-to-be-released item during the ``sunshine''
period.
Wheeler is now at it again, this time in the context of the
FCC's attempt to impose stringent price regulation for
``business data services'' (BDS). Let's look at this shameful
timeline. Sometime last late last year, the FCC started
working on a new regulatory framework for BDS. At the heart
of the commission's new regulatory framework was an economic
appendix prepared by an outside expert, Marc Rysman of Boston
University.
On April 14, 2016, approximately two weeks before the FCC
was to vote on the formal ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking''
containing its proposed BDS regulatory framework, the agency
requested outside peer review (as required by law) of the
Rysman Appendix from Andrew Sweeting of the University of
Maryland and Tommaso Valletti of Imperial College Business
School (U.K.). Sweeting responded on April 26, 2016 (12 days
after the peer review request); and Valletti responded on
April 28, 2016 (14 days after the peer review request).
Neither peer review was particularly kind to Rysman's
analysis.
On April 28, 2016, the FCC voted on its ``Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking'' to provide an aggressive new regulatory
paradigm for BDS (hereinafter ``BDS NPRM''). Due to editorial
privileges, however, the FCC did not formally release the BDS
NPRM until May 2, 2016. Although the commission had the
Sweetling and Valletti critiques in hand during the editorial
privilege window and could have incorporated them into the
final BDS NPRM, the FCC declined. In fact, the FCC made no
mention of either critique of the Rysman Appendix in its
final BDS NPRM, choosing instead to keep the existence of the
Sweeting and Valletti reviews secret from the public.
On June 28, 2016--almost two months to the day since the
BDS NPRM was first voted upon and the very date initial
comments were due the FCC finally made the existence of the
Sweeting and Valletti peer reviews public. Adding to the
commission's subterfuge, the agency chose the same day also:
(1) to perform a massive data dump into the record; (2) to
release an updated version of the Rysman Appendix; and (3) to
introduce three new staff studies (the same staff which are
charged with writing the final BDS rules) purporting to
address, and ultimately correct, the shortcomings of the
Rysman Appendix. In so doing, the FCC made sure that no one
could address either these data or studies in their initial
comments.
For those who care about the integrity of our government
institutions, the FCC's constant disregard for due process is
deeply troubling. As the D.C. Circuit recently wrote in
Association of American Railroads v. Department of
Transportation (2016):
No clause in our nation's Constitution has as ancient a
pedigree as the guarantee that ``[n]o person . . . shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.'' U.S. CONST. amend. V. Its lineage reaches back to 1215
A.D.'s Magna Carta, which ensured that ``[n]o freeman shall
be . . . disseised of his . . . liberties, or . . . otherwise
destroyed . . . but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by
the law of the land.'' Magna Carta, ch. 29, in 1 E. Coke, The
Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 45
(1797). Since the Fifth Amendment's ratification, one theme
above all others has dominated the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the Due Process Clause: fairness. Id. at
27.
Now to be clear, as Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote in
Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934), while ``[d]ue process of law
requires that the proceedings shall be fair . . . fairness is
a relative, not an absolute, concept. It is fairness with
reference to particular conditions or particular results.''
That said, as the D.C. Circuit again affirmed just last month
in U.S. Telecom Association v. FCC, it remains black-letter
law that ``[u]nder the [Administrative Procedure Act], an
NPRM must `provide sufficient factual detail and rationale
for the rule to permit interested parties to comment
meaningfully.' ''
As the FCC has by any reasonable account deprived parties
with the opportunity to comment meaningfully upon the
fundamental economic analysis and data upon which it intends
to use to impose rate regulation for BDS, I think it is safe
to argue that under even the broadest light, the agency's
conduct in this case is a prima facie violation of procedural
due process.
What is the FCC so afraid of? Is it truly scared to have
substantive debate on the issues? Is the outcome so
predetermined that it has to resort to kangaroo court tactics
that would make North Korean leader Kim Jong-un proud?
Indeed, it is a bit ironic (if not outright hypocritical)
that while the FCC is doing everything it can to prevent
meaningful comments about a highly complex topic, the Obama
administration is doing everything in its power to create a
culture which encourages robo-comments which offer up nothing
substantive to the debate other than to promote ideological
sophistry from both sides of the political spectrum. And we
wonder why (rhetorically) the FCC is now regarded as an
``economics-free zone,'' as an AT&T executive noted?
Given the D.C. Circuit's recent proclivity to grant the FCC
great deference, no matter how many liberties it may take,
restoring the rule of law at the FCC will ultimately fall
into the hands of Congress. Fortunately, the House Energy and
Commerce Committee has scheduled yet another oversight
hearing
[[Page H364]]
next week with all five members of the Commission in
attendance, where perhaps some sunlight can be used as a
disinfectant. I therefore encourage the Commerce Committee
members and staff--from both sides of the aisle--to do their
homework, come to the hearing prepared, and call Chairman
Wheeler out on the carpet.
Mr. POSEY. As the letter states: ``No presumption of scientific
legitimacy can be afforded when making good public policy.''
Unfortunately, many administrative agencies make this assumption and do
not take seriously the peer review process. For that reason, I once
again urge my colleagues to support this good government proposal for
transparency and accountability that will help protect the integrity of
the Federal rulemaking process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
115-2 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Ruiz of California.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) 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 237,
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 35]
AYES--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Cleaver
Gonzalez (TX)
Harris
Lamborn
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1749
Messrs. VARGAS, THOMPSON of California, WELCH, JEFFRIES, O'HALLERAN,
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, and Mr. PAYNE changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. REED changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Peterson
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Peterson) 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 Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260,
noes 161, not voting 13, as follows:
[[Page H365]]
[Roll No. 36]
AYES--260
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bera
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruppersberger
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--161
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crist
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Frankel (FL)
Gallego
Garamendi
Gottheimer
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
LaMalfa
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Payne
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Rokita
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
Lamborn
Mulvaney
Nolan
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1755
Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. O'HALLERAN and SCHNEIDER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 36, I mistakenly
recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
Mr. SOUZZI. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 36, I mistakenly
recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 231, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 37]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
[[Page H366]]
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Becerra
Cleaver
Goodlatte
Harris
Lamborn
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Stivers
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1759
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 37.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) 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 Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 232, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 38]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
Lamborn
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1802
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H367]]
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 234, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 39]
AYES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
Lamborn
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1806
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Ruiz
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Ruiz) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 40]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
[[Page H368]]
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1811
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a
2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 227, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 41]
AYES--195
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Walker
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1816
Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Tonko
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 235, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H369]]
[Roll No. 42]
AYES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1820
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 236, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 43]
AYES--185
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
[[Page H370]]
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Cleaver
DeGette
DesJarlais
Harris
Mulvaney
Pelosi
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1824
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, 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. 5) to
reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and formulate new
regulations and guidance documents, to clarify the nature of judicial
review of agency interpretations, to ensure complete analysis of
potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes,
and, pursuant to House Resolution 33, he reported the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments 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 reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were 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
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. DEMINGS. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Demings moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
37, line 9.
Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
39, line 12.
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
TITLE VII--PROTECTING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR
AMERICANS OVER THE AGE OF 65
SEC. 701. PROTECTING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
FOR AMERICANS OVER THE AGE OF 65.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not
apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in
section 551 of title 5, United States Code), pertaining to
the provision of health and financial security for persons
ages 65 and over by significantly reducing out-of-pocket
medication costs for prescription drugs for plans under the
Medicare program under part D of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101 et seq.), regardless of the
person's income, medical history, or health status. The
provisions of law amended by this Act, as in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply
to such rules.
Mr. MARINO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, throughout my 27 years of law enforcement experience, I
protected and served my community, and I stand here today to protect
the most vulnerable of seniors in central Florida, and seniors all
around this Nation.
We have a responsibility to see that seniors are not put in a
position where they will have to choose between buying food or buying
their medication, which was the case before the Affordable Care Act. We
must resist all efforts to reopen the Medicare part D prescription drug
coverage doughnut hole. This doughnut hole required seniors to pay full
price for their prescription drugs after they reach their catastrophic
threshold.
Research found, because of this doughnut hole, seniors would put
their health at risk because they could not afford to pay the
prescriptions, which ultimately lead to higher healthcare costs.
Because of the Affordable Care Act, this doughnut hole is being
completely phased out of the Medicare part D prescription drug program
by the year 2020.
Since the ACA passed in 2010, closing the doughnut hole has saved our
seniors more than $23.5 billion on their prescription drugs. We know
this is working. Florida seniors enrolled in the program are now saving
an average of $987 a year because of closing the loophole.
{time} 1830
We know what $987 means to the average senior on Medicare. We also
know that if these coverage gap discounts disappeared, part D enrollees
would have to pay $3,725 for the time period they are in the doughnut
hole. This $3,725 represents nearly 15 percent of a Medicare enrollee's
income.
With too many Floridians and seniors across the Nation struggling to
make ends meet, I strongly believe that Congress can do more to make
sure we do not go backwards and reopen this doughnut hole. No one
should ever have to choose between food or medicine.
I urge my colleagues to consider the livelihood and dignity of our
most vulnerable seniors and vote for my amendment to protect access to
affordable prescription drugs for older Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, this bill's bold reforms deliver the heart
of the regulatory reform this Nation desperately needs; and I cannot
overstate how desperately we need it because, after 8 years of the
Obama administration's blowout administrative state, what do we have?
We have an economy that for 8 straight years has failed to produce
enough good, new, full-time jobs to sustain growth and restore dignity
to the unemployed. We have 92 million Americans outside the workforce,
a level not seen since the Carter years. We have nearly $2 trillion of
American wealth commandeered each year to be spent as Washington
bureaucrats demand, through runaway regulation--$2 trillion. This is
more money than the GDP of all but eight countries in the world.
We do not need a regulatory state that is that size; we need a
regulatory system that is cut down to size. And lest we ever forget, we
need a regulatory system that never again allows
[[Page H371]]
a runaway executive branch to do what the Obama administration did: use
a pen and a phone to undertake an end run around Congress and force on
the American people job-crushing policies that their elected
representatives in Congress never supported.
This motion to recommit turns a blind eye to all of that. It says to
the runaway administrative state: Keep on running as fast as you can;
we don't care. It says to the American people: Sit down and be quiet.
Washington bureaucrats are your betters, and you need to just keep
doing what they tell you to do.
Well, the hardworking taxpayers have spoken and yanked the boots of
unelected bureaucrats off the throats of hardworking Americans. Enough
is enough. Support this bill. Reject this motion to recommit. Show the
American people that they come first, not bureaucrats in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. DEMINGS. 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 190,
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 44]
AYES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Becerra
Cleaver
Harris
MacArthur
Mulvaney
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1839
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 44.
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.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 183, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 45]
YEAS--238
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
[[Page H372]]
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--183
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Cleaver
DeLauro
Gabbard
Harris
Mulvaney
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Rice (SC)
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1846
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________