[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1403-H1408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1004, REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF
2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1009, OIRA INSIGHT,
REFORM, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 156
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1004) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United
States Code, to require the publication of information
relating to pending agency regulatory actions, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment
to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1009) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs to review regulations, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-4. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
[[Page H1404]]
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The gentleman from Texas
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. It
is a fair rule that enables thoughts and ideas from both sides of the
aisle to be considered on the House floor today. It enables us to
proceed with the work that the American people have sent us here to
accomplish. It is of great measure of the work that we are doing today.
We had an extensive and long committee hearing at the Committee on
Rules yesterday with witnesses from both sides of the aisle,
Republicans and Democrats, who felt strongly about the issues and ideas
that were before them and the ideas which will be presented on the
floor of the House of Representatives today, the underpinning of which
are entitled to give the American people a better shot at a better life
not only from a business perspective, economic development, but also
the creation of jobs in the United States of America.
Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying legislation
contained in this rule. These bipartisan initiatives will enhance
transparency, provide for a check on Federal agencies, and I believe
help create a better process in the Federal Government for the people
we serve, which are the people of this great Nation.
Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 to ensure
that the public had an opportunity to provide expertise, opinions, and
other comments during the rulemaking process that takes place in the
administration. It was designed to provide guarantees of due process in
administrative procedures for self-governing American citizens who have
to live under these rules that are promulgated by those unelected and
not necessarily known by the American people.
The Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, as it is commonly
referred to, was designed to require agencies to keep the public
informed of the information and ideas, procedures, and rules, and to
provide a means for public participation in the rulemaking process that
would take place here in Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Federal bureaucrats over
years and previous administrations have exploited the broad language of
the Administrative Procedure Act to focus the rulemaking process solely
for special interest reasons. Sometimes it is groups, sometimes it is
ideas, and sometimes it is against the voices of the average American
who wishes to participate in this process. This clearly was not the
APA's legislative intent and reflects yet another encroachment on
Congress' Article I powers which are enshrined in the United States
Constitution.
This shift away from the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act,
known as the APA, has meant that most agency deliberations are carried
out without a record or even a public review of those decisions that
are made. Additionally, and possibly more troubling, agencies have
undermined the purpose and the spirit of the notice-and-comment process
by actively campaigning in support of their ideas using government
resources and processes to that advantage.
The clearest example of this abuse can be found recently and
numerously at the Environmental Protection Agency, known as the EPA.
After issuing the waters of the United States notice of proposed
rulemaking, the EPA undertook a public campaign utilizing social media
platforms to solicit support for what was, at the time, a promulgated
rule. Following this abuse, the GAO issued a report finding that the
EPA violated propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use
of their fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations.
The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 helps ensure transparency in the
rulemaking process by prohibiting Federal agencies from anonymously
issuing statements for propaganda purposes, in other words, an agency
lobbying for itself, its ideas, as opposed to the public comment
period, final rulemaking, and then issues and ideas being discussed
with and by the people of the country. Specifically, H.R. 1004 requires
agencies to make available online information about public
communications on pending regulatory actions.
Further, H.R. 1004 requires that agencies ``expressly disclose that
the Executive agency is the source of the information to the intended
recipients.''
Why is this important?
This is important because too many times information is provided
without the basis of the facts behind it. It is opinion, Mr. Speaker.
When members of the public see information that is provided, a source
should be behind that information.
Further, H.R. 1004 prohibits agencies from ``soliciting support for
or promoting . . . pending agency regulatory action.'' A simple concept
of transparency and, I believe, professionalism that both sides of the
aisle should not only demand, but also welcome from any executive
agency, regardless of who is in the White House. It is in the best
interest of the American public, and transparency and honesty related
to that should be above reproach. Unfortunately, this has also not been
the instance, as there are abuses and overreach by Federal agencies and
unelected bureaucrats.
Presidents of both parties have required a centralized review of
regulations since the 1970s. This has largely been handled by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as it is
commonly referred to. Every President since President Ronald Reagan has
required a centralized review of regulations at OIRA so that an agency
can do cost-benefit analysis of regulatory actions, which means there
is a centralized process for the administration to look at what they
do.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton put into place Executive Order 12866
to designate OIRA as the repository of expertise concerning regulatory
issues. The executive order limited OIRA's review of regulations to
only significant rules changes, those that have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. This office is responsible for
reviewing the regulatory actions at both the proposed and final
rulemaking stages. Unfortunately, lately, agencies have blatantly
ignored the principles of the executive order from President Clinton,
Executive Order 12866, and other governing authorities, including those
requiring State, local, and tribal consultation in the rulemaking
process have been ignored.
According to a policy center at George Mason University, agencies
usually satisfy 60 percent or less of the requirements called for in
the regulatory analysis, meaning that certain times we have found the
executive branch did not even follow the well-known processes that are
there to protect the people who they are trying to
[[Page H1405]]
provide services to. Mr. Speaker, we believe that is partially why we
are here today, to clarify and correct these problems.
For example, between 2000 and 2013, 98 percent of the Environmental
Protection Agency's final rules contained no estimated compliance
costs. That means that the agency chose not to follow the process that
is prescribed by the executive order. Additionally, the EPA routinely
justifies its regulatory activities by claiming benefits from matters
unrelated to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, you can well see
why there is consternation not only among people in the United States,
but uncertainty with business that is attempting to follow the well-
understood rules and regulations and the processes that go therein only
to find out that our government chooses not to follow the rules and
regulations that they should be following.
H.R. 1009 codifies the requirement for OIRA to conduct a review of
significant regulations to ensure the regulations are consistent with
applicable law and the principles set forth in the executive order. It
also establishes new transparency measures such as requiring increased
disclosure when extending review time, explanations about regulations
that are dropped from the unified agenda, and a redline of changes that
agencies make to regulations while it is under review by OIRA.
OIRA review is important to provide a double check on agencies to
ensure not only compliance with the law, but the well-understood
proposals that are made by agencies and the processes that they expect
to understand in that process. That is why the main tenets of the
underlying legislation have been supported by Presidents in the past,
Members of Congress in the past, and even the judiciary that should
expect that processes and procedures are followed properly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a note, if I can, and add into the
Record a Statement of Administration Policy that came from one of our
former colleagues, now the Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick
Mulvaney. Mr. Mulvaney, in his new duties as the Director of the OMB,
provided his first Statement of Administration Policy. It is concerning
exactly the act that we are speaking about. I would like to
congratulate the young Director of the OMB for his ascension to not
only an important role, but helping the United States Congress to
clarify for the American people that which is in their best interest.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 998--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily
Burdensome (SCRUB) Act
(Rep. Smith, R-MO, and three cosponsors)
H.R. 1004--Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017
(Rep. Walberg, R-MI, and eight cosponsors)
H.R. 1009--OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act
(Rep. Mitchell, R-MI, and four cosponsors)
The Administration is committed to reducing regulatory
burden on all Americans. On January 30, 2017, President Trump
signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, which provides for repeal of
two regulations for every new one issued. This historic step
accelerates the retrospective review process to make common-
sense reforms to regulations across the Federal Government.
Legislation is helpful where it amends agencies' regulatory
processes to ensure they are transparent, and appropriately
balance costs and benefits.
Each of these bills would address different aspects of the
regulatory process. The SCRUB Act, H.R. 998, addresses the
numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary
regulations that have accumulated throughout government. The
Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, H.R. 1004, would restrict
the use of agency funds to advocate on behalf of regulations,
and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, H.R.
1009, would codify specific executive branch regulatory
review procedures.
The Administration supports the SCRUB Act, the Regulatory
Integrity Act, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and
Accountability Act. The Administration looks forward to
working with the Congress on technical and other amendments
to these bills.
The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Congress
to rationalize the regulatory system and looks forward to
continuing to work together to reform the regulatory process.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule and both
underlying bills, H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and
Accountability Act; and H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act.
These two bills that would be debated under this rule were both
reported out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
without a single Democratic vote. So these are not bipartisan bills.
They were reported out of committee only by Republicans. The bills
threaten transparency, undermine the independent authority of
government agencies, and weaken the separation of powers between our
three branches of government at a time in our history when we need it
the most.
I sat in this Chamber last night as President Trump spoke about
fixing healthcare and immigration systems, but we haven't seen those
plans yet. Instead, all we have seen are these kinds of not-bipartisan
bills that don't accomplish a lot.
Now, these two bills claim to offer accountability and integrity in
the rulemaking process, but when you look past their title, you see
what they really are is just another backdoor attack on American
workers, an attack on our environment and protecting our public health.
First with regard to H.R. 1009, much has been said since the start of
this Congress about the importance of our checks and balances in our
system. We have a new President who isn't shy about blurring the lines
of separation between the executive, legislative, and even the judicial
branches of government. He publicly condemned a judge based on his
ethnicity in a private case. He also attacked a judge who struck down
his order on immigration. I find it troubling to be debating a bill
that would make government agencies even more dependent on the judgment
of the White House when many of us question the judgment of the
gentleman currently occupying the Oval Office.
Under current law, independent agencies, like the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, and many others don't need approval from the
administration to move forward with a new rule or regulation.
Misleadingly characterized as simplifying the existing executive order,
what this bill would actually do is require all rules made by
independent government agencies to be sent to the White House,
centralizing the power of the White House and the power of the
President.
{time} 1245
This bill effectively mandates improper influence by the White House.
In addition, the bill repeals language that exempts rules considered
to be lifesaving from having to undergo a full review process.
If those reasons weren't enough to dissuade my colleagues from voting
in favor of this rule, let me briefly discuss the unlimited review
window this bill would create to derail and delay important rules.
Frankly, important provisions like this are the reasons why the
American people, often rightfully, accuse the government of waste,
fraud, and abuse.
By giving the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs unlimited
time to review rules, Congress would effectively allow the White House
to bury rules in red tape and paperwork, the very red tape and
paperwork and bureaucracy that the American people are frustrated with.
This bill is a recipe to make government less efficient rather than
more efficient. It would grind the rulemaking process to a halt by
burying the very limited staff of the White House under a whole array
of rules from independent agencies that, with no timeline, would simply
sit in the White House either going nowhere or being studied by
committee after committee after committee. Perhaps, after several
years, they will see the light of day after even more bureaucrats have
had the chance, at your taxpayer expense, to read those rules.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill
makes the
[[Page H1406]]
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs somehow more accountable
by Congress by authorizing the statute, but that is not the case. This
bill, like many other bills we have seen in this Congress, frankly, is
a solution in search of a problem.
I don't disagree that the rulemaking process should be simplified,
but there is a collaborative, bipartisan way to do that. This bill does
not represent that idea. If passed, H.R. 1009 would reduce the ability
of independent government agencies to work effectively, create
additional paperwork and bureaucracy, and transfer significant power
and authority to the White House and the President.
Frankly, this bill is a serious threat on our checks and balances at
a time we need it the most. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to take that into account when voting on the rule and the bill
today.
The second bill under this rule is H.R. 1004, the so-called
Regulatory Integrity Act. It is another example of Republican attacks
on health and safety protections.
The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 requires executive agencies to
provide extensive and, often, gratuitous information on their websites
related to any pending regulatory action they are seeking to make.
Again, it is difficult to find a Member of this body who doesn't
believe that we want more transparency, more accountability, and more
streamlining of regulations. Of course, those are priorities for the
country. This bill does not do that.
I don't believe an outright attack on our rulemaking process meant to
protect our health, meant to protect people from fraud and abuse, and
giving yet more hoops for agency officials to jump through in doing the
job that Congress has asked them to do, in no way is that the correct
way to go about increasing transparency in government. This bill makes
it more difficult for all of the agencies that we have set up, that we
have directed, to do their job: to protect the American public.
The new reporting requirements that are included in this bill will
distract agencies from their core missions of keeping Americans safe
and, again, bury them under mounds and mounds of additional paperwork
requirements. Many of these agencies have seen their budgets cut by the
Republicans, and the reporting requirements will take up even more of
their very limited capacity that they have under the budget constraints
they operate at.
As many of us know, this bill was born out of a 2015 GAO study that
determined that the Environmental Protection Agency had violated
certain restrictions during the rulemaking process for waters of the
U.S. To me, the fact that that determination was made by an independent
government agency is proof that our oversight process works. If there
is a bipartisan bill we can do to implement best practices, I think
that we could have strong Democratic support for that. This bill does
not do that.
Republicans are ignoring the fact that the GAO also concluded that
``the agency complied with the applicable requirements,'' and were so
concerned with providing the public with opportunities to comment that
the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers conducted over 400 meetings across
the country. If this bill passes the House, the ability of agencies to
do those kinds of outreach efforts and stakeholder involvement efforts
would be limited. It would be limited by vast and unnecessary
additional work, red tape, and bureaucratic reporting requirements that
would be mandated under this bill with the same limited resources they
have today. I think that it would be better use of their limited
resources to do those kinds of field opportunities across the country,
giving American stakeholders and people involved the opportunity to
testify about how those rules affect them.
The most immediate and certain effect of this bill would be to
virtually prohibit agencies from disclosing to the public any benefits
that agency actions would have in protecting the American people. If an
agency is no longer allowed to explain how the rulemaking process would
benefit and protect the American people, the public, of course, would
view this as some sort of burdensome regulation. Perhaps that is the
goal of this bill from a propaganda perspective.
Finally, this bill will ban agencies from soliciting support for
their regulations, seemingly forgetting that current law already does
this. If there is need to clarify it again, we can certainly do so in a
bipartisan way.
This unsettling trend of trying to, in fact, regulate regulations
actually leads to additional bureaucracy and paperwork. It is a
disservice to American workers and families, to our environment, and
to many Americans who don't know if they can make their rent or have
health insurance at the end of the month. It is a disservice to the
thousands of military and civilian workers no longer able to seek
employment in the Federal Government and a disservice to so many
American children and adults.
The fact that we are even considering these bills illustrates that
the priorities in Congress are not in line with the priorities of the
people that we represent. I have not heard an outcry from my
constituents on any of these issues. I hear about health care. I hear
about immigration reform, improving our schools, making college more
affordable, not that we need more administrative hurdles to the
rulemaking process. I haven't heard it once from a single constituent
at 51 townhalls I had last session.
The passage of this bill will put a significant administrative burden
on government agencies that issue rules to protect Americans. It would
limit the ability of the agencies that we set up under our authorizing
statutes to do their job: to protect the health and safety of the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject these bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful observations on this rule and
on the bills. I will acknowledge that yesterday at the Rules Committee
there was a vigorous discussion--I thought, professional on both
sides--where there was an idea about the intent of this bill and what
it would, in essence, lay off on the administration, or any
administration, in trying to make sure that they complied with the law.
I will tell you that our Appropriations chairman, as well as the
Appropriations Committee, would be able to deal effectively with this
if they believed they needed more money in order to accomplish these
efforts. But I think that transparency is an important issue, and I
think that our authorizing and appropriating committees will understand
that, as they deal with agencies, a better dialogue, whether it be
Republican or Democrat in office, needs to be able to deal with
Congress, provide us information, provide the American people with
information, and be forthright about the decisions that they are going
to make.
I think that the new Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick
Mulvaney, responded in his advice back--meaning the statement of
administrative policy that directly took on this issue--that he looked
forward to not only working with Congress on their needs, but also
complying with the spirit of the law. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what
we are doing today is providing information to a brand-new
administration and saying to a brand-new administration that it is okay
if you have your ideas about those issues that you would wish to take
up, but you have to be forthright about what you are doing. You have to
provide information not only to Congress, but the American people; and
when you propose changes or rules, you have to be honest and forthright
in doing that.
It may be a little bit more money, but this Congress will stand
behind this. And I believe that the new Trump administration, at least
through my conversations with our new President and the head of OMB,
they intend for across the government, across a new administration to
attempt to be forthright and direct about what they are doing and why
we are doing it. Now, more than ever, whether you are a Republican or
Democrat or not--you could be a person back home--you are entitled to
try and clarify and ask information. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee, who served his State
honorably as their agriculture commissioner.
[[Page H1407]]
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for
yielding me this time.
I am certainly in favor of the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017,
which I think will provide necessary transparency in the regulatory
process by requiring agencies to post all public comments issued during
a proposed rulemaking, which sounds simple enough. I cosponsored this
legislation because I strongly believe, and I firmly believe, the
public comment process is critical to ensure Federal regulations are
drafted to protect the American people and not to punish them.
Unfortunately, far too often, agencies either ignore or fail to
incorporate the public's input and suggestions when proposing and
finalizing these important rules. Many regulatory actions impose
billions of dollars in compliance and other costs on industries, on
consumers, on small businesses, on farmers, and on families while
bureaucrats ignore the meaningful input, suggested improvements, and
the real concerns being voiced by the very people that will be most
affected by their actions.
Mr. Speaker, this measure requires more transparency and
accountability of Federal agency communications about proposed and
pending regulations. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency
have continually violated Federal laws and appropriations restrictions
that prohibit the use of Federal funds for lobbying, advocacy, and
propaganda efforts.
I know many are aware of the EPA's unlawful social media campaign
advocating for the waters of the United States rule, the WOTUS rule;
however, an even more egregious example recently occurred in my own
home State of Washington. The EPA-funded What's Upstream campaign used
grant awards to fund a website, radio ads, and billboards depicting
dead fish and polluted water, alleging that farmers and the agriculture
industry were responsible. The website helped visitors email their
State legislators to advocate for 100-foot stream buffer zones around
farms and other agricultural operations, despite prohibitions against
such advocacy.
As a lifelong farmer, I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was
insulted by the blatant lies this campaign had spread about farmers;
and as a Member of Congress, I am outraged that the EPA continues to
award grant funding to the entities responsible for this, I think,
despicable and deceitful antifarmer campaign. I believe Congress must
ensure Federal agencies follow the law to prevent future libelous
campaigns like What's Upstream from ever receiving another cent of
taxpayer dollars.
H.R. 1004 prohibits lobbying in support of proposed rules and
requires agencies to track the details of all public communications
about pending regulatory actions, while establishing clear standards
for prohibited activities. This will guarantee that both the public and
Congress understand how Federal agencies communicate with the public
about pending regulations, and these reasonable restrictions will
support transparency and accountability across the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, agencies should consider comments from the public and
incorporate reasonable changes so that proposed Federal regulations can
be revised and refined using that valuable public feedback before they
are finalized. However, too often, Federal bureaucrats simply go
through the motions and end up ignoring the public's input while they
happily flout Federal law and create campaigns designed to garner
support for their preferred proposals. Federal agencies must not treat
their proposed regulations as final. By doing so, they are ignoring the
voice and the will of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this important rule and the
underlying bill; then, together, we can return transparency, we can
return accountability, and we can return public input to the Federal
rulemaking process once and for all.
{time} 1300
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has any remaining speakers?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do not have
additional speakers. I would wish to not only close myself, but to
present a little bit more information. I would allow the gentleman, if
he were prepared to offer his close, I would do the same.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned over the reports from our
intelligence community regarding foreign interference in our most
recent election. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation, H.R. 356, the
Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would create an independent
commission to investigate the foreign interference in our 2016
election.
This is not a partisan matter. Both Democrats and Republicans have
called for this investigation and a full accounting for the American
people. Frankly, the American people deserve to know what happened, and
Congress has the responsibility to get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, when I was back in my district earlier this
year, again, I didn't have a single constituent raise issues over
regulatory reform. I did have people ask if we can have a full
accounting of foreign interference with our more recent election, and,
if we defeat the previous question, that will give us an opportunity to
do that.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
I will also urge them to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the
underlying bills.
Just so no one is here under any illusions, Republicans do currently
control the House, and the Senate, and the White House. Frankly, they
have the ability to set the agenda, and they could use that agenda to
advance real reforms like infrastructure, or tax reform, or fixing our
broken immigration system, repairing broken roads and bridges. Today,
instead, we are debating something so obscure that I don't think the
American people know what OIRA does or how to pronounce it; another
bill that has to deal with whether regulations are seen and signed off
on by the staffers in the White House; and two bills that don't do
anything but undermine the separation of powers, undermine the
authority of this institution, the United States Congress, and make it
harder for public agencies to do the job that we have instructed them
to do to keep the American people safe.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so we can bring up H.R. 356, the Protecting Our
Democracy Act, and oppose the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been fair and above board. I want
to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Colorado not only for his
service on the Rules Committee, but his service today in annunciating
not just his party's policies and ideas on this, but also his own, as
he brings a vast business experience not only to Congress and to the
Rules Committee, but to serve the people of his congressional district.
However, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I think that this will be
overwhelming success on a bipartisan basis today, and the reason why
is, because what we are doing is in the best interest of the American
people.
We are doing this because the American people want and need an
opportunity, as they petition their government, to know that they were
heard, for their issues and ideas to be seen. And I would think now
more than ever, especially if it were a prior administration, we would
be accused of trying to jam down their throats something that we saw
that was trying to put an undue burden on another administration. But,
in fact, we are not.
And so the thoughts and ideas today should be--regardless of the
administration, regardless whether you completely agree, or somewhat
disagree,
[[Page H1408]]
we would want that government, that agency to be able to operate with
the confidence of the American people. And that means that they are not
there for their own purposes, or special interests, or for them to skew
facts or information that might be provided to the American people,
but, in fact, were opinions as opposed to something that was reasonably
gained as a result of a scientific fact or information that was based
on facts of the case.
Mr. Speaker, the regulatory state in this country has grown
exponentially and, really, to unprecedented levels. Unelected
bureaucrats have exceeded their authority, they are creating
regulations, they are negatively impacting the marketplace, which
causes a problem for me back home, and Members of Congress back home,
as businesses talk about following rules and regulations rather than
the marketplace, and trying to add employees and to turn the cash
register.
Accordingly, the American Action Forum, when totaling all available
regulatory costs reported by executive agencies, the Obama
administration imposed more than $600 billion in regulatory costs from
2009 to 2014. That is $600 billion worth of regulatory costs imposed on
the American people by unelected bureaucrats that have increasingly
become unaccountable, not only to economic growth, but also to the
American people, and I believe to Congress.
Other studies have produced the same conclusion and it is this: that
runaway regulations have a disastrous effect on the United States
economy, impacting not only job creation, but also the effective
opportunity for the free enterprise system to exist.
Federal agencies should exist to serve the American people. And as
such, they should heed and respect their views and comments, while
staying within the parameters of laws passed by lawmakers or ensuring
the rulemaking process is transparent and free of propaganda.
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate you allowing us time to debate this on
behalf of the American people today. This rule and the underlying
legislation will provide an important check on the regulatory state
that we find exists today in the United States, and to return
transparency, responsiveness, and, I believe, honest dignity to the
American people that we serve, for this overreaching process. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 156 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign
Interference in the 2016 Election. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 356.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________