[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1430-H1447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              OIRA INSIGHT, REFORM, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1009.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 156 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. 1009.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1605


                     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. 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, with Mr. Joyce 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 Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are here to consider H.R. 1009. This is a bill sponsored by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell). It is cosponsored on the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Palmer). We are also pleased to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) as cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, 
Reform, and Accountability Act. OIRA stands for the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs. It has many responsibilities. It is 
a little known agency, but very powerful and very important. Some of 
its most well-known responsibilities are governed by an executive 
order. Executive Order 12866 was issued by President Clinton in 1993. 
The order was maintained under President Bush and reaffirmed by 
President Obama in 2009.
  The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act puts into statute 
the basic structure that has existed for more than two decades. The 
legislation also includes some minor adjustments for increased 
transparency and accountability. For example, agencies are required to 
provide OIRA with a redline of any changes the agency chooses to make 
during the review process. This allows the public to better understand 
how centralized review can improve the quality of rulemaking.
  The bill clarifies the process for extending the time for OIRA to 
review regulations. Currently, OIRA has 90 days to review a regulation, 
but at the

[[Page H1431]]

request of the issuing agency, OIRA can extend the review indefinitely 
without notice to the public. Under the Obama administration, many 
rules were under review for more than a year with no explanation 
whatsoever. H.R. 1009 requires OIRA and the regulating agency to agree 
upon the extension and provide a written explanation to the public, 
including an estimated date of completion.
  The government works for the people. You would think if they are 
going to miss deadlines and be late and go beyond the current rules, 
the people who are involved in the rulemaking would at least offer a 
little bit of a written explanation. The bill also requires OIRA to 
update the explanation and estimated completion date every 30 days 
after that moving forward.
  Another significant difference from the executive order is H.R. 1009 
includes independent agencies in OIRA's review of significant 
regulations. Independent regulatory agencies already submit their 
regulations to OIRA for the unified agenda and the annual regulatory 
plans. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, independent agencies submit 
information collection requests, which is another way to say government 
forms, to OIRA for approval. For decades, experts across the political 
spectrum, including the Administrative Conference of the United States 
and the American Bar Association, have called for the inclusion of 
independent agencies in the significant regulation review process. 
Again, a good group there, the Administrative Conference of the United 
States, as well as the American Bar Association also asking for these 
independent agencies.
  There is significant bipartisan agreement on including the 
independent agencies. In fact, President Obama's Jobs Council 
recommended including independent agencies in OIRA's regulatory review. 
Sally Katzen, OIRA administrator under President Clinton, said: ``For 
all practical purposes, the way executive branch agencies and 
independent agencies conduct rulemaking is the same, so they both 
should be expected to gather and use information on the costs and 
benefits of new regulatory proposals.'' She went on to suggest: 
``Congress could adapt that approach for OIRA review of the analysis 
underlying independent agency rulemakings.'' And she goes on.

  That is exactly what the bill does, which brings me to the last major 
difference between this bill and the executive order. This bill 
requires OIRA to report on what it reviewed and the results of that 
review. The Oversight Committee conducted an extensive investigation 
into the Waters of the United States rulemaking, also known as WOTUS. 
During the course of the investigation, it was clear OIRA was not 
conducting the analysis I think we should all expect. OIRA even 
shortchanged the interagency review process in order to meet the self-
imposed arbitrary deadline.
  H.R. 1009 requires OIRA to issue a report on each significant 
regulation it reviews so the public can see exactly what legal 
requirements OIRA focused on and what OIRA found. H.R. 1009 asks OIRA 
to consider: Did the agency technically comply with the requirement? 
Did it make solid effort to improve the regulation through the process? 
Or was the agency just going through the motions? These are very 
legitimate, easy, simple questions that we think can be answered.
  Agencies are supposed to consider the public's comments, but what if 
the final rule is drafted before the comments are even reviewed? 
Perhaps the law does not explicitly prohibit that, but is it really an 
effective regulatory practice? The question is more than just whether 
agencies have simply complied. It is whether the agency is doing 
everything it can to limit the burden and make its regulations 
effective and easy to understand.
  By requiring OIRA to make the results of its review of rulemakings 
available to the public, this bill will encourage agency accountability 
and improve the public's understanding of the rulemaking process. The 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved this bill, 
without amendment, on February 14 of this year.
  I again want to thank the leadership of Congressman Mitchell for 
doing all that he has done to bring us to this point where we are 
debating this on the floor of the House. I also want to thank Katy 
Rother for her tireless work on this bill. She has done an awful lot of 
work, working with both sides of the aisle. Hats off to her as well. 
Again, I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1009, the OIRA 
     Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
     Pickford.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Keith Hall.
       Enclosure.

        H.R. 1009--OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government 
                      Reform on February 14, 2017


                                SUMMARY

       H.R. 1009 would codify many executive orders and practices 
     of the federal government related to the process of issuing 
     federal regulations. The legislation also would expand the 
     role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     (OIRA) in the regulatory process and authorize OIRA to review 
     rules proposed by certain independent federal agencies.
       CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase 
     administrative costs to OIRA and federal agencies by a total 
     of $20 million over the 2018-2022 period; such spending would 
     be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. CBO 
     estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 
     spending by $3 million over the 2018-2027 period and would 
     reduce revenues by $2 million over the same period. Because 
     the bill would affect revenues and direct spending, pay-as-
     you-go procedures apply.
       CBO also expects that enacting H.R. 1009 could delay the 
     issuance of some rules. However, because of the large number 
     and variety of federal rules issued each year, CBO cannot 
     determine whether a delay in the effective date of some rules 
     would have a cost or savings to the federal government.
       CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1009 would not increase 
     net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 
     billion in one or more of the four consecutive 10-year 
     periods beginning in 2028.
       H.R. 1009 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or 
     tribal governments.


                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 1009 is shown in the 
     following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
     all budget functions that include agencies that issue or 
     review regulations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024    2025    2026    2027   2018-2022  2018-2027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level.....................       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4        20         40
Estimated Outlays.................................       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4        20         40
 
                                                              INCREASES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Estimated Budget Authority........................       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *         2          3
Estimated Outlays.................................       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *         2          3
 
                                                                  DECREASES IN REVENUES
 
Estimated Revenues................................       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *        -1         -2
 
                                        NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
 
Impact on Deficit.................................       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *         3          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: *= between -$500,000 and $500,000.


[[Page H1432]]

  



                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

       For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1009 will be 
     enacted near the end of fiscal year 2017 and that spending 
     will follow historical patterns for these and similar 
     activities.
       CBO is not aware of any comprehensive information on 
     current spending for regulatory activities governmentwide. 
     However, according to the Congressional Research Service, 
     federal agencies issue 3,000 to 4,000 final rules each year. 
     Most are promulgated by the Departments of Transportation, 
     Homeland Security, and Commerce, and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA). Agencies that issue the most major 
     rules (those with an estimated economic impact on the economy 
     of more than $100 million per year) include the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and 
     the EPA.
       H.R. 1009 would codify certain regulatory policies and 
     practices that are currently being implemented pursuant to 
     several executive orders. Those instructions require agencies 
     in the executive branch to analyze the impacts of regulations 
     (including costs and benefits), to coordinate with OIRA 
     during the rulemaking process, and to perform other 
     activities and analyses related to considering the effects of 
     proposed rules.

                   Spending Subject to Appropriation

       On the basis of information from OIRA and several federal 
     agencies on the cost of the rulemaking process, CBO estimates 
     that more personnel would be needed to produce additional 
     analyses and to perform other administrative tasks under H.R. 
     1009. CBO estimates that spending would increase by about $4 
     million annually and $20 million over the 2018-2022 period to 
     hire and train sufficient staff. Such spending would be 
     subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

                            Direct Spending

       CBO estimates that some independent regulatory agencies 
     would face an increased administrative workload under H.R. 
     1009 because, under current law, most independent regulatory 
     agencies are not required to submit regulatory analyses to 
     OIRA. Some of those agencies, primarily the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau (CFPB), can spend funds for such activities 
     without further appropriation. CBO estimates that enacting 
     H.R. 1009 would cost about $3 million over the 2018-2027 
     period for the FDIC and CFPB to prepare additional reports 
     and analyses of proposed regulations for OIRA.

                                Revenues

       H.R. 1009 would affect revenues by changing the cost of the 
     operations of the Federal Reserve System, which remits its 
     net earnings to the Treasury; those remittances are 
     classified as revenues in the federal budget. The legislation 
     would impose additional administrative expenses on the 
     Federal Reserve to prepare reports and analyses for OIRA. 
     Based on the cost of similar administrative work of the 
     Federal Reserve, CBO estimates those additional 
     administrative costs would reduce remittances by the Federal 
     Reserve to the Treasury by $2 million over the 2018-2027 
     period.


                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

       The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
     reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation 
     affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in 
     outlays and revenues that are subject to these pay-as-you-go 
     procedures are shown in the following table.

 CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1009, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM ON FEBRUARY 14, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024    2025    2026    2027   2017-2022  2017-2027
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact............       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0         3          5
Memorandum:
    Changes in Outlays....................       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0         2          3
    Changes in Revenues...................       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0        -1         -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         INCREASE IN LONG-TERM NET DIRECT SPENDING AND DEFICITS

       CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1009 would not increase 
     net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 
     billion in one or more of the four consecutive 10-year 
     periods beginning in 2028.


              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

       H.R. 1009 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in UMRA.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Nathaniel Frentz, 
     Matthew Pickford, and Stephen Rabent; Impact on State, Local, 
     and Tribal Governments: Zachary Byrum; Impact on the Private 
     Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
       Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2017.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 14, 2017, the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without 
     amendment H.R. 1009, the ``OIRA Insight, Reform, and 
     Accountability Act'' by a vote of 23 to 16. The bill was 
     referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration, to 
     memorialize our understanding.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2017.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz: I write with respect to H.R. 1009, 
     the ``OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act.'' As a 
     result of your having consulted with us on provisions within 
     H.R. 1009 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, I forego any further 
     consideration of this bill so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1009 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our 
     committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as 
     this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation and asks 
     that you support any such request.
       I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 998 and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of H.R. 1009.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. My colleagues on the other side 
have portrayed this bill as simply a codification of an executive order 
President Clinton issued. That simply is not the case. This bill makes 
significant changes to the regulatory process. The bill would require 
independent agencies to submit rules to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, for review. Independent agencies do not 
currently have to get the approval of the White House for regulations 
they issue. Congress designed independent agencies to be just that, 
independent. This bill would change that.
  In February of 2015, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
Chairman Jason Chaffetz sent four letters to the chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission alleging that the White House had 
``an improper influence'' on the FCC's net neutrality plan and that the 
FCC ``failed to establish the appearance that this rulemaking is 
independent, fair, and transparent.''
  The bill we are considering would enshrine in law that very 
allegation my esteemed colleague Chairman

[[Page H1433]]

Chaffetz had concerns about, political interference by the White House 
with the FCC and other independent agencies. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that this bill would increase direct spending by $3 
million and reduce revenues by $2 million. These direct spending and 
revenue effects are caused by the fact that the bill covers independent 
agencies. CBO has also estimated that the bill would cost Federal 
agencies an additional $20 million in administrative costs. Imagine. I 
am fighting to keep the budget down in this matter.
  The bill does not include offsets for any additional spending. The 
bill also omits critical phrases from Executive Order 12866 that 
ensures that OIRA reviews do not contradict existing law. For example, 
the executive order requires agencies to provide the cost and benefits 
of alternatives to a proposed rule ``unless prohibited by law.'' The 
bill does not include this exception, and my colleagues on the other 
side have still not explained why it does not include this language.

                              {time}  1615

  It is unclear how the bill would impact laws that prohibit agencies 
from considering costs when setting public health standards.
  The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an alliance over 150 labor, 
scientific, good government, health, and environmental groups--sent a 
letter to the House Members yesterday opposing this bill. That letter 
said in part:
  ``Particularly concerning, H.R. 1009 would in effect rewrite dozens 
of public interest laws containing congressional mandates that require 
agencies to prioritize public health and safety and the preservation of 
the environment, clean air, and clean water over concerns for industry 
profits. This consequence flows from another key difference between 
H.R. 1009 and the Executive Orders it purports codify: Whereas the 
Orders impose their requirements only to the extent consistent with 
applicable laws, H.R. 1009 recognizes no such limitations.''
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would also give OIRA the ability to hold up 
rulemaking indefinitely.
  Under Executive Order 12866, the administrator over OIRA has 90 days 
to review a rule, and that period can be extended one time for 30 days. 
This bill would allow OIRA to extend its review ``for any number of 
additional 30-day periods upon written request by the administrator or 
the head of the agency.''
  The bill also gives the rulemaking agencies the ability to object to 
an extension of OIRA review period, but it is not realistic to think 
that an agency would refuse a request for an extension from the White 
House.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists also sent a letter to House Members 
opposing this bill. That letter said:

       Of particular concern is the fact that H.R. 1009 aims to 
     codify some of the most burdensome requirements of previous 
     executive orders while gutting the much-needed flexibility 
     that the orders provide to Federal agencies in charge of 
     ensuring science-based protections for the public. Congress 
     should increase protections for our constituents rather than 
     preventing agencies from issuing science-based protections.

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding.
  Last night, President Trump stood feet from here and spoke about the 
need and his commitment to regulatory reform.
  I would like to echo those comments. One of the chief reasons the 
voters sent most of us here is because they know that Federal 
regulation is killing our economy and placing a heavy burden on 
families. I am proud to deliver on a promise I made during the 
campaign, and to have done so in the first 100 days. The OIRA Insight, 
Reform, and Accountability Act codifies the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, known as OIRA. OIRA serves as the regulatory 
gatekeeper, a safety valve, providing a process and review to hold back 
the floodgates of unnecessary burdensome and duplicative regulations.
  OIRA is a bipartisan office within the executive branch that was 
originally created during the Reagan administration and further 
outlined by President Clinton in an executive order. President Clinton 
put it well when he said:
  ``The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for 
them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves 
their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the 
performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or 
unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that 
the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic 
growth; regulatory approaches that respect the role of State, local, 
and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, 
sensible, and understandable.''
  I agree with President Clinton's words in 1993. This is about making 
sure government solves problems, rather than creates them. And create 
them, it has.
  In recent years, the regulatory state has grown to impressive levels. 
Between 2006 and 2015, agencies published over 36,000 final rules, of 
which 555 were considered economically significant. That is, they 
anticipated an economic effect of $100 million or more.
  Many of these regulations have been imposed without thorough cost-
benefit analysis, placing huge burdens on families and businesses. What 
is worse, Americans have had little, if any, influence on regulations 
that impact their lives as unelected bureaucrats regularly have 
exceeded their authority while imposing regulations that negatively 
impact them. It is our responsibility as the people's representatives 
to protect them from this ever-expanding regulatory state.
  This bill is simple and plain. The bill locks into place existing 
transparency requirements like the unified agenda and the annual 
regulatory plan.
  The bill also requires OIRA to tell us more about what they are 
currently doing.
  After OIRA conducts a review of significant regulations, H.R. 1009 
requires OIRA to give us a readout. Imagine that, we want them to tell 
us what they are doing. How did the agency do? Is the regulation well 
drafted? Did the agency meet the requirements of the law? That is a 
novel approach. Did the agency pick the best way to regulate? OIRA is 
already required to conduct this review under Executive Order 12886.
  The bill asks OIRA to tell us the results. I am surprised and 
disappointed that even on this bill we have seen significant 
opposition.
  My minority counterparts have made complaints based on strained legal 
arguments, but they haven't offered an amendment to fix the alleged 
problem. Why? Because they don't like the basic concepts of the bill. 
These are not partisan concepts. We have heard their concerns in 
committee. We obviously disagree at this point. And as the chairman 
said, this is passed by committee without amendment. We look forward to 
support, and I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are opposed to the bill because we have received letters and 
concerns from a cross section of Americans, a cross section of 
organizations, who recognize that this is not really a codification of 
an executive order, but this is overreach on the part of the majority 
of Congress at this time. They feel that they are able to do it, and so 
they are going to ram this through.
  H.R. 1009 would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already slow 
rulemaking process. The Consumer Federation of America says:

       The bill creates a regulatory working group to provide 
     input to agencies about how to improve their regulatory 
     process, including an evaluation of risk assessment 
     techniques.

  It appears like this is what we are going to be doing throughout 
Oversight and Government Reform, is creating new task forces and new 
groups to review rulemaking and review regulations at the cost of the 
taxpayer.
  H.R. 1009 would jeopardize the independence of agencies like the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal 
Communications Commission, as well as other independent agencies 
because it will give the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
OIRA, the ability to

[[Page H1434]]

review significant rules which are outside of their scope now. That is 
why these agencies are called independent, because Congress wanted them 
to be independent. We are now giving OIRA overreach into independent 
agencies.
  The Consumer Federation of America goes on to say:

       Authorizing OIRA to conduct its own analysis would not only 
     add pressure from the executive branch and add time and 
     expense to the already slow regulatory process, but would 
     also give the special interests seeking to quash a safety 
     measure yet another avenue to prevent a rule from being 
     promulgated.

  Significantly, independent agencies were created by Congress to 
prioritize public health and safety, ensure a fair financial 
marketplace, and consumer privacy. This bill would undermine the 
authorizing statutes and the missions of these independent agencies by 
allowing those agencies to be in some way touched by the White House.
  Again, we have the Natural Resources Defense Council. Their letter to 
all of the Members said:

       The bill would also revive legislative language that 
     Congress repealed elsewhere because it made it impossible to 
     protect the public.

  Specifically, in H.R. 1009, OIRA was charged with ensuring that the 
regulation imposes the least burden on society. Congress removed such 
language when it updated TSCA because the phrase had made it impossible 
for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster, even when the 
chemical was asbestos, well known to be a potential carcinogen.
  No one wants to impose unnecessary burdens on society, but the phrase 
``least burdensome'' has been interpreted to put an agency in an 
impossible position of providing that there is no other conceivable way 
to accomplish its goal of having to cost out every theoretical option.
  The reason we are opposed to this bill is because it makes it more 
difficult for independent agencies to remain independent and not be 
moved by the White House by political machinations that this Congress 
is now trying to impose on them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me mention that the bill does not require any of these agencies 
to provide new analysis. And I haven't really heard an example or a 
reason why something would be prohibited in an agency from sharing 
existing cost-benefit analysis.
  What could the agencies have that they should not share with OIRA?
  It just seems reasonable that if they have this information, they 
should share it. Ultimately, we do work for the American people, and 
the American people should be able to see this information as it goes 
to OIRA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Plaskett 
for yielding to me.
  H.R. 1009 would empower Trump's White House to block all of the 
independent financial agencies' proposed actions to protect our 
economy. And, worse, the bill empowers President Trump's advisers to 
influence monetary policy, including interest rates that affect 
America's mortgages, credit cards and IRAs.
  Independent agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
would have to first receive the okay from Trump's administration, 
packed with Wall Street insiders, before they could protect the 
American public. For example, the administration could block the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent proposal to stop payday 
lender debt traps. These agencies would be directed to write rules 
favorable to industry, subjecting individuals once again to predatory 
practices.
  I am so deeply troubled that H.R. 1009 gives the Trump administration 
a say in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions. The 
importance of Fed independence is well established and results in 
objective, nonpolitical policymaking, and a high degree of credibility 
with financial markets.
  However, today's bill threatens the integrity of these decisions. 
Given that the Fed's actions can move stock markets by hundreds of 
points, we should absolutely reject the Trump White House and 
Republicans' desire to use the Fed for partisan gain.
  An administration that believes bad polls are ``fake news,'' goes to 
great lengths to inflate the number of attendees at the inauguration, 
and misrepresents the Nation's debt level should not be allowed to 
meddle with the interest rate decisions or marketplace guardrails 
critical to our economy's health.
  I urge Members to oppose this bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from the Virgin 
Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for yielding to me.
  I had to come down as I saw this attempt to use our jurisdiction to 
undermine our independent agencies. And I want to put an emphasis on 
independent agencies because they have always been treated differently.

                              {time}  1630

  Executive Order 12866 has long subjected agency rulemakings to some 
review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, but 
independent agencies have been treated differently. Congress 
deliberately created them as independent to exempt them from political 
review for their regulatory actions by the White House.
  The agencies we are talking about are very often agencies that deal 
with our economy. They are almost always agencies whose subject matter 
is controversial, like the National Labor Relations Board, which deals 
with labor management matters, or the FTC, whose role is to prevent 
anticompetitive business practices, not to mention the Fed.
  Now, the executive order provides OIRA with the ability to do cost-
benefit analysis ``unless prohibited by law.'' Those words are our -
congressional words, ``unless prohibited by law.''
  Now, that language is not in this executive order. Does it mean that 
it is erased so that, with respect to environment and public safety 
rules for example, ``prohibited by law'' no longer obtains and cost 
benefit can be done so that you can weigh the cost or the benefit of 
rules? The benefit would be clear, but the cost of rules that are so 
protective of the public that we have exempted them in the past--the 
silence is deafening.
  Agencies also have always been able to indicate, because they have 
the only real knowledge, whether or not their rulemakings are 
significant. How could we give this exclusive authority now to OIRA? 
The politicization of independent agencies, making them subject to 
White House oversight, is very dangerous. It robs them of what is 
perhaps the most important part of their independence. This bill goes 
many steps too far.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I would just point out that these 
independent agencies need oversight as much as any other agency; and, 
ultimately, what we are trying to do is provide more transparency, more 
information to the public. Whether or not they think they are 
independent or not, they still work for the American people, and the 
people that are footing the bills and that have to live under these 
regulations should have the right to see this information and have this 
information provided to them through the process.
  We are never going to apologize for trying to increase the 
transparency and the process. That is what this bill does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, we would say that this bill is not 
necessarily about transparency so much as it is about the executive 
branch, and specifically the White House, being able to reach into 
these independent agencies. There are already mechanisms in place for 
the transparency that my colleague is speaking about. What we are doing 
now is creating another level of oversight over the committees, over 
these independent agencies, so that this Congress can then have reach 
into them as well.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[[Page H1435]]

  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, 
Reform, and Accountability Act, yet another radical bill, part of a 
corporate agenda designed to eviscerate public protections under the 
Clean Water Act and other laws designed to ensure the safety of 
American families.
  As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Regulatory Reform, I have several serious concerns with this measure.
  First, H.R. 1009 would eviscerate the independence of agencies that 
are critical to holding corporations accountable and protecting 
consumers, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 
Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
Congress established these expert agencies with the express purpose of 
exercising independence from the policy whims of the White House.
  Section 3423 of H.R. 1009, however, would task the White House Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with a governmentwide 
review of significant regulatory actions, effectively placing this 
obscure entity as the gatekeeper of the rulemaking system.
  Currently, OIRA only reviews a small portion of significant 
regulatory actions, allowing it to effectively allocate its finite 
resources to review the most pressing rules. But by substantially 
expanding OIRA's mandate to include every significant regulatory 
action, this legislation would simultaneously water down agency 
oversight while also subjecting independent agencies to the influence 
of the Trump administration, facilitating political interference in the 
rulemaking process.
  One of the overriding goals of OIRA review is to ensure that the 
President's policies are reflected in agency rules. Greater 
Presidential control over rulemaking, particularly in this 
administration's hands, could have devastating consequences in terms of 
public health and safety. It would not only provide special interests 
with an additional tool for regulatory capture, but it would also allow 
the White House to substitute its own policy preferences for those of 
Congress.
  As Senator Ron Johnson, the Republican chair of the Senate committee 
with jurisdiction over administrative law, observed in a report last 
year: ``Limits on the President's power over independent agencies--like 
the Federal Communications Commission--demonstrate the importance of 
maintaining the agency's independence.''
  Furthermore, because President Trump has made the outrageous and 
unprecedented choice not to divest his business holdings, I am also 
very concerned that H.R. 1009 would only serve to convert the 
regulatory system into his own personal investment account.
  Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, recently noted: 
``The Nation's golfer-in-chief'' owns or brands businesses across the 
country that would be affected by protections promulgated under the 
Clean Water Act. Increasing the White House's role in the rulemaking 
system will only serve to undermine what little transparency exists 
into the President's regulatory conflicts of interest.
  The Government Accountability Office has reported in multiple studies 
that OIRA has not addressed transparency concerns that GAO has raised, 
and for this reason I offered an amendment.
  I was pleased to hear my friend from Utah talk about the transparency 
benefits, but I offered an amendment to H.R. 1009 that was designed to 
ferret out crony capitalism by requiring that OIRA reports whether a 
significant regulatory action would financially benefit the President 
or his senior advisers. That seems like a really sensible idea if you 
really want to get at the issue of transparency.
  Very disappointingly, my Republican colleagues refused to make my 
amendment in order, really tacitly acknowledging their concerns with 
what this type of transparency might mean for the Trump administration.
  Finally, while supporters of this proposal argue that it merely 
codifies executive orders that were issued under Democratic 
administrations, the reality is that H.R. 1009 was drafted without 
Democratic input, contains several poison pill provisions designed to 
ensure its partisan and unworkable nature, and would only have been 
vetoed by the Obama administration.
  As the Obama administration noted in the context of a veto threat of 
another antiregulatory bill, agencies already adhere to the robust and 
well-understood 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.
  Passage of antiregulatory legislation to ``replace this established 
framework with layers of additional procedural requirements,'' the 
Obama administration cautioned, ``would undermine the ability of 
agencies to execute their statutory mandates.'' Because H.R. 1009 does 
this very thing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  There are many organizations that oppose this bill, including 
consumer protection groups such as The Center for Popular Democracy's 
Fed Up Coalition. The Fed Up Coalition sent a letter to House Members 
today that said:

       The Fed Up Coalition exists to ensure that policymaking at 
     the Federal Reserve reflects the concerns of working families 
     and communities of color. By encroaching on the Fed's ability 
     to pursue sound regulation and extending the hand of the 
     executive branch in the Federal Reserve decisionmaking, H.R. 
     1009 undermines the Feds's ability to keep our financial 
     system safe and protect working families and taxpayers that 
     our coalition represents.

  I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1009, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just want to simply point out that the bill does extend OIRA to 
review independent agencies. I also would point out, as I did earlier, 
the Administrative Conference of the United States recommended OIRA 
review be extended to independent agencies back in 1988.
  In fact, the American Bar Association recommended OIRA review be 
extended to independent agencies in 1990 and reaffirmed the need again 
in 2016. They said: ``We strongly urge you to bring the independent 
regulatory commissions within the requirements for cost-benefit 
analysis''--I am going to just inject my own words here in the middle.
  Cost-benefit analysis, isn't that something reasonable that we should 
all look at? That is not asking an agency too much, especially if they 
already have the information.
  They went on to say: ``OMB review, and retrospective review of rules 
currently reflected in Executive Order 12866. . . . `'
  Those are not overly burdensome requests. In fact, in 2011, Sally 
Katzen, the OIRA Administrator under President Clinton, urged Congress 
to support extending OIRA review to independent agencies, when she 
wrote: ``Our concern is that independent agencies are not typically 
engaging in the analysis that has come to be expected as a form of 
governmental best practice for regulatory agencies.''
  It seems like a reasonable expectation to employ best practices. And 
all that bill does is--again, it does not interfere with independent 
agencies' rulemaking process or their policy decision. It simply 
requires OIRA to review the regulations to ensure these agencies are 
complying with legal requirements just the same as any other agency.
  That is a reasonable request. That is why we urge its passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-4. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 1, 2017, on page H1435, the following appeared: . . . 
original bill for the purpose of an amendment under the 5-minute 
rule an
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: . . . original 
bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1009

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``OIRA Insight, Reform, and 
     Accountability Act''.

[[Page H1436]]

  


     SEC. 2. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

       (a) Amendment.--Subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 44, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sections:

     ``Sec. 3522. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
       Regulatory Working Group; regulatory plan; Unified Agenda

       ``(a) Regulatory Working Group.--
       ``(1) Establishment; members.--The Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall convene a 
     working group to be known as the Regulatory Working Group, 
     whose members shall consist of the following:
       ``(A) The Administrator.
       ``(B) Representatives selected by the head of each agency 
     that the Administrator determines to have significant 
     domestic regulatory responsibility.
       ``(C) Other executive branch officials as designated by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(2) Chair.--The Chair of the Regulatory Working Group 
     shall be the Administrator, who shall periodically advise 
     Congress on the activities of the Regulatory Working Group.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The Regulatory Working Group shall serve as 
     a forum to assist agencies in identifying and analyzing 
     important regulatory issues, including, at a minimum--
       ``(A) the development of innovative regulatory techniques;
       ``(B) the methods, efficacy, and utility of comparative 
     risk assessment in regulatory decisionmaking; and
       ``(C) the development of streamlined regulatory approaches 
     for small businesses and other entities.
       ``(4) Meetings.--The Regulatory Working Group shall meet 
     not less than quarterly and may meet as a whole or in 
     subgroups of members with an interest in particular issues or 
     subject areas.
       ``(5) Analytical studies.--To inform the discussion of the 
     Regulatory Working Group, the Regulatory Working Group may 
     request analytical studies and reports by the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Administrative 
     Conference of the United States, or any other agency.
       ``(b) Regulatory Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Deadline for and description of regulatory plan.--Not 
     later than June 1 of each year, the head of each agency shall 
     approve and submit to the Administrator a regulatory plan 
     that includes each significant regulatory action that the 
     agency reasonably expects to issue in proposed or final form 
     in the following fiscal year or thereafter and the 
     retrospective review described in paragraph (2). The 
     regulatory plan shall also contain, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(i) A statement of the regulatory objectives and 
     priorities of the agency.
       ``(ii) A summary of each planned significant regulatory 
     action including, to the extent possible, alternatives to be 
     considered and preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs 
     and benefits of such action.
       ``(iii) A summary of the legal basis for each such action, 
     including whether any aspect of the action is required by 
     statute or court order.
       ``(iv) A statement of the need for each such action and, if 
     applicable, how the action will reduce risk to public health, 
     safety, or the environment, as well as how the magnitude of 
     the risk addressed by the action relates to any other risk 
     within the jurisdiction of the agency.
       ``(v) The schedule for each such action, including a 
     statement of any applicable statutory or judicial deadline.
       ``(vi) The name, email address, and telephone number of a 
     knowledgeable agency employee the public may contact for 
     additional information about each such action.
       ``(B) Circulation of regulatory plan.--Not later than 10 
     days after receiving the regulatory plan under subparagraph 
     (A), the Administrator shall circulate the regulatory plan to 
     any other agency the Administrator determines may be affected 
     by the plan.
       ``(C) Agency notification to oira of conflicting 
     significant regulatory actions.--The head of an agency shall 
     promptly notify the Administrator in writing if any planned 
     significant regulatory action in the regulatory plan of 
     another agency may conflict with the policy or action taken 
     or planned by that agency. The Administrator shall forward 
     any notification received under this subparagraph to the 
     other agency involved.
       ``(D) Notification of conflicting significant regulatory 
     actions.--The Administrator shall notify the head of an 
     agency in writing if any planned significant regulatory 
     action conflicts with any policy or action taken or planned 
     by another agency.
       ``(E) Requirement to publish in unified agenda.--Each 
     regulatory plan submitted by the head of an agency under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be included in the October publication 
     of the Unified Agenda described under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Retrospective review.--
       ``(A) List of outdated regulations.--The head of each 
     agency shall include in the regulatory plan submitted under 
     paragraph (1)(A) a list of regulations that have been 
     identified by the agency (including any comments submitted to 
     the agency) as unjustified, unnecessary, duplicative of other 
     regulations or laws, inappropriately burdensome, or otherwise 
     recommended for removal.
       ``(B) Description of retrospective review.--The head of 
     each agency shall include in the regulatory plan submitted 
     under paragraph (1)(A) a description of any program or other 
     effort to review existing regulations to determine whether 
     any such regulations should be modified or eliminated in 
     order to increase the effectiveness in achieving the 
     regulatory objectives of the agency or to reduce the burden 
     of regulations. The agency shall include any statutory 
     requirements that require the agency to promulgate or 
     continue to impose regulations that the agency believes are 
     unnecessary or outdated by reason of changed circumstances.
       ``(C) OIRA coordinated review.--The Administrator shall 
     work with interested entities and agencies, including through 
     the processes established under subsection (d), to review the 
     list of regulations identified under subparagraph (A) and 
     such entities may assist OIRA and the agencies with 
     identifying regulations or groups of regulations that--
       ``(i) impose significant or unique burdens on governmental 
     entities and that are no longer justified; or
       ``(ii) affect a particular group, industry, or sector of 
     the economy.
       ``(c) Unified Agenda.--
       ``(1) Submission of regulations under development or 
     review.--Not later than April 1 and October 1 of each year, 
     the head of each agency shall submit to the Administrator an 
     agenda of each regulation under development or review in 
     accordance with any guidance issued under this section. Each 
     agenda shall include, to the extent practicable, the 
     following:
       ``(A) For each regulation--
       ``(i) a regulation identifier number;
       ``(ii) a brief summary of the regulation;
       ``(iii) a citation to the legal authority to issue the 
     regulation;
       ``(iv) any legal deadline for the issuance of the 
     regulation;
       ``(v) the name and phone number for a knowledgeable agency 
     employee; and
       ``(vi) the stage of review for issuing the regulation.
       ``(B) For each regulation expected to be promulgated within 
     the following 18 months--
       ``(i) a determination of whether the regulation is expected 
     to be a significant regulatory action or an economically 
     significant regulatory action; and
       ``(ii) any available analysis or quantification of the 
     expected costs or benefits.
       ``(C) For any regulation included in the immediately 
     previous agenda, an explanation of why the regulation is no 
     longer included.
       ``(2) Publication of unified agenda required.--Not later 
     than April 15 and October 15 of each year, the Administrator 
     shall compile and publish online each agenda received under 
     paragraph (1) (to be known as the Unified Agenda).
       ``(3) Guidance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue guidance 
     for agencies on the manner of submission under this 
     subsection and on meeting the requirements of this 
     subsection, including a standard definition for each stage of 
     review and any other definition that would assist the public 
     in understanding the different terms used by agencies to 
     submit the agenda required under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Updates.--The Administrator shall periodically review 
     compliance with this section and issue guidance or 
     recommendations to assist agencies in complying with this 
     section.
       ``(d) Coordination With State, Local, and Tribal 
     Governments and the Public.--
       ``(1) State, local, and tribal governments.--The 
     Administrator shall meet not less than quarterly with 
     representatives of State, local, and tribal governments to 
     identify both existing and proposed regulations that may 
     uniquely or significantly affect those government entities.
       ``(2) Public.--The Administrator shall periodically convene 
     conferences with representatives of businesses, 
     nongovernmental organizations, and the public to discuss 
     regulatory issues of common concern.
       ``(e) Best Practices.--The Administrator shall, in 
     consultation with the Regulatory Working Group and the 
     entities described in subsection (d), periodically develop 
     advice and guidance for agencies on best practices of the 
     development of regulations.

     ``Sec. 3523. OIRA coordinated review of significant 
       regulatory actions

       ``(a) OIRA Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall conduct a 
     Governmentwide coordinated review of significant regulatory 
     actions to ensure that such regulations are consistent with 
     applicable law and that a regulatory action by one agency 
     does not conflict with a policy or action taken or planned by 
     another agency.
       ``(2) Periodic agency submission of planned regulatory 
     actions.--The head of each agency shall provide to the 
     Administrator, at such time and in such a manner as 
     determined by the Administrator, a list of each planned 
     regulatory action with an identification of whether each such 
     regulatory action is a significant regulatory action.
       ``(3) Review of significant regulatory action required.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall make a 
     determination of whether any planned regulatory action 
     submitted under this section is a significant regulatory 
     action and shall review each such significant regulatory 
     action in accordance with this section.
       ``(B) Not subject to review.--Any planned regulatory action 
     determined by the Administrator not to be a significant 
     regulatory action is not subject to review under this 
     section.
       ``(C) Notification required.--Not later than 10 days after 
     a planned regulatory action has been determined to be a 
     significant regulatory action, the Administrator shall notify 
     the head of the relevant agency of such determination.
       ``(4) Waiver of review for significant regulatory action.--
     The Administrator--
       ``(A) may waive review of any planned regulatory action 
     designated as a significant regulatory action; and
       ``(B) shall publish online a detailed written explanation 
     of any such waiver.

[[Page H1437]]

       ``(b) Agency Consultation With OIRA.--
       ``(1) In general.--An agency may consult with OIRA at any 
     time on any regulatory action.
       ``(2) Regulation identifier number.--The head of an agency 
     shall make every effort to obtain a regulation identifier 
     number for the regulatory action that is the subject of the 
     consultation before consulting with OIRA.
       ``(3) Consultation information required.--If the head of an 
     agency is unable to obtain the regulation identifier number 
     as described in paragraph (2), the head of the agency shall 
     provide the regulation identifier number to OIRA as soon as 
     the number is obtained with a list of any previous 
     interactions with OIRA relating to the regulatory action that 
     is the subject of the consultation.
       ``(c) Agency Submission of Significant Regulatory Action 
     for Review.--Before issuing a significant regulatory action, 
     the head of an agency shall submit the significant regulatory 
     action to the Administrator for review and shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) The text of the significant regulatory action.
       ``(2) A detailed description of the need for the 
     significant regulatory action.
       ``(3) An explanation of how the significant regulatory 
     action will meet the identified need.
       ``(4) An assessment of potential costs and benefits of the 
     significant regulatory action.
       ``(5) An explanation of the manner in which the significant 
     regulatory action is consistent with a statutory mandate and 
     avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal 
     government functions.
       ``(6) For an economically significant regulatory action, if 
     any of the following was developed during the decisionmaking 
     process of the agency:
       ``(A) An assessment of and quantification of costs and 
     benefits of the significant regulatory action.
       ``(B) An assessment of and quantification of costs and 
     benefits of potentially effective and feasible alternatives, 
     including any underlying analysis.
       ``(C) An explanation of why the planned significant 
     regulatory action is preferable to any identified potential 
     alternatives.
       ``(d) Deadlines for Review.--
       ``(1) Review coordination.--To the extent practicable, the 
     head of each agency shall work with the Administrator to 
     establish a mutually agreeable date on which to submit a 
     significant regulatory action for review.
       ``(2) Expedited review.--When an agency is obligated by law 
     to issue a significant regulatory action before complying 
     with the provisions of this section, the head of the agency 
     shall notify the Administrator as soon as possible. To the 
     extent practicable, OIRA and the agency shall comply with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(3) 10-day review.--In the case of a significant 
     regulatory action that is a notice of inquiry, advance notice 
     of proposed rulemaking, or other preliminary regulatory 
     action prior to a notice of proposed rulemaking, within 10 
     business days after the date of submission of the such action 
     to the Administrator, OIRA shall complete the review.
       ``(4) 90-day review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     for any other significant regulatory action not described in 
     paragraph (3), within 90 days after the date of submission of 
     the action, OIRA shall complete the review.
       ``(B) Exception 45-day review.--If OIRA has previously 
     reviewed the significant regulatory action described in 
     subparagraph (A) and, since that review, there has been no 
     material change in the facts and circumstances upon which the 
     significant regulatory action is based, OIRA shall complete 
     the review within 45 days after submission of the action.
       ``(5) Extension.--Any review described under this 
     subsection may be extended for any number of additional 30-
     day periods upon written request by the Administrator or the 
     head of the agency. Such request shall be granted unless the 
     nonrequesting party denies the request in writing within 5 
     days after receipt of the request for extension.
       ``(6) Return.--If the Administrator determines OIRA is 
     unable to complete a review within the time period described 
     under this subsection, the Administrator may return the draft 
     of the significant regulatory action to the agency with a 
     written explanation of why OIRA was unable to complete the 
     review and what additional information, resources, or time 
     OIRA would need to complete the review.
       ``(7) Withdrawal.--An agency may withdraw the regulatory 
     action from OIRA review at any time prior to the completion 
     of the review.
       ``(e) Compliance Review.--The Administrator shall review 
     any significant regulatory action submitted under subsection 
     (c) to determine the extent to which the agency--
       ``(1) identified the problem that the significant 
     regulatory action is designed to address (including, where 
     applicable, the failures of private markets or public 
     institutions that warrant new agency action);
       ``(2) assessed the significance of the problem the 
     regulatory action is designed to address;
       ``(3) examined whether existing regulations or laws have 
     created or contributed to the problem that the regulatory 
     action is designed to correct and whether those regulations 
     or laws should be modified to achieve the intended goal more 
     effectively;
       ``(4) identified and assessed available alternatives to 
     direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to 
     encourage desired behaviors, such as user fees or marketable 
     permits, or providing information upon which choices can be 
     made by the public;
       ``(5) considered, to the extent reasonable, the degree and 
     nature of the risks posed by various substances or activities 
     within the jurisdiction of the agency;
       ``(6) designed the regulatory action to be the most cost-
     effective manner to achieve the regulatory objective;
       ``(7) considered incentives for innovation, consistency, 
     predictability, flexibility, distributive impacts, equity, 
     and the costs of enforcement and compliance by the 
     Government, regulated entities, and the public;
       ``(8) assessed costs and benefits of the regulatory action 
     and made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify 
     the costs;
       ``(9) used the best reasonably obtainable scientific, 
     technical, economic, and other information concerning the 
     need for and consequences of the regulatory action;
       ``(10) identified and assessed alternative forms of 
     regulation and, to the extent feasible, specified performance 
     objectives rather than behavior or manner of compliance;
       ``(11) sought comments and suggestions from appropriate 
     State, local, and tribal officials on any aspect of the 
     regulatory action that might significantly or uniquely affect 
     those governmental entities;
       ``(12) assessed the effects of the regulatory action on 
     State, local, and tribal governments, including specifically 
     the availability of resources to carry out the regulatory 
     action, and minimized the burdens that uniquely or 
     significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent 
     with achieving regulatory objectives;
       ``(13) harmonized the regulatory action with the regulatory 
     and other functions of State, local, and tribal governments;
       ``(14) avoided conflicts with or duplication of other 
     existing regulations;
       ``(15) tailored the regulatory action to impose the least 
     burden on society, including individuals, businesses of 
     differing sizes, and other entities (including small 
     communities and governmental entities), consistent with 
     obtaining the regulatory objectives, and taking into account, 
     among other things and to the extent practicable, the costs 
     of cumulative regulations;
       ``(16) drafted the regulatory action to be simple and easy 
     to understand, and minimized the potential for uncertainty 
     and litigation arising from such uncertainty;
       ``(17) met all applicable Executive order requirements;
       ``(18) met all applicable statutory requirements; and
       ``(19) complied with all applicable guidance.
       ``(f) Quality Review.--For any significant regulatory 
     action submitted under subsection (c), OIRA shall assess the 
     extent to which the agency conducted a meaningful and 
     complete analysis of each of the factors described in 
     subsection (e), considering best practices, methods observed 
     through reviewing other agencies, comments from stakeholders, 
     and other resources that may improve the quality of the 
     process.
       ``(g) Interagency Consultation.--The Administrator shall 
     identify each agency potentially affected, interested, or 
     otherwise likely to provide valuable feedback on a 
     significant regulatory action submitted under subsection (c) 
     and facilitate a meaningful interagency consultation process. 
     The Administrator shall--
       ``(1) provide each identified agency with a copy of the 
     draft regulatory action;
       ``(2) allow each identified agency to review the draft 
     regulatory action for a sufficient period of time, not less 
     than 10 business days;
       ``(3) solicit written comments from such agency and provide 
     those written comments to the submitting agency; and
       ``(4) as appropriate, facilitate conversations between 
     agencies.
       ``(h) Stakeholder Consultation.--For all substantive 
     communications between OIRA and individuals not employed by 
     the executive branch regarding a regulatory action submitted 
     to the Administrator for review under this section, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(1) invite the issuing agency to any meeting between OIRA 
     personnel and individuals not employed by the executive 
     branch;
       ``(2) not later than 10 business days after receipt of any 
     written communication submitted by any individual not 
     employed by the executive branch, make such communications 
     available to the public online; and
       ``(3) make available to the public online a log, which 
     shall be updated daily, of the following information:
       ``(A) The status of each regulatory action.
       ``(B) A copy of any written communication submitted by any 
     person not employed by the executive branch.
       ``(C) The dates and names of persons involved in any 
     substantive oral communication and the subject matter 
     discussed during such communication.
       ``(i) Conclusion of Review.--
       ``(1) Provision to agency.--Upon completion of the review, 
     the Administrator shall provide the head of an agency with 
     the results of the OIRA review in writing, including a list 
     of every standard, Executive order, guidance document, and 
     law reviewed for compliance and the results for each.
       ``(2) Changes during review period.--Within 24 hours after 
     the conclusion of the OIRA review under this section, the 
     head of the submitting agency shall provide the Administrator 
     with a redline of any changes the agency made to the 
     regulatory action during the review period. To the extent 
     practicable, the agency shall identify any change made at the 
     suggestion or recommendation of any other agency, member of 
     the public, or other source. To the extent practicable, the 
     agency should identify the source of any such change.

     ``Sec. 3524. Public disclosure of regulatory review

       ``(a) In General.--On the earlier of 3 days after OIRA 
     completes the review of any agency significant regulatory 
     action under section 3523, the date on which such agency 
     publishes the regulatory action in the Federal Register, or 
     the date on which the agency announces a decision

[[Page H1438]]

     not to publish the regulatory action, the Administrator shall 
     make available to the public online--
       ``(1) all information submitted by an agency under section 
     3523;
       ``(2) the results of the review provided to the agency 
     under section 3523;
       ``(3) the redline of any changes made by the agency during 
     the course of the review provided under section 3523(i)(2); 
     and
       ``(4) all documents exchanged between OIRA and the agency 
     during the review.
       ``(b) Plain Language Requirement.--All information provided 
     to the public shall, to the extent practicable, be in plain, 
     understandable language.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 35 of title 44, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 3521 the following new items:

``3522. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Regulatory Working 
              Group; regulatory plan; Unified Agenda.
``3523. OIRA coordinated review of significant regulatory actions.
``3524. Public disclosure of regulatory review.''.

       (c) Definitions.--Section 3502 of title 44, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13)(D), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(15) the term `Administrator' means, unless otherwise 
     indicated, the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs;
       ``(16) the term `economically significant regulatory 
     action' means any regulatory action described under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (21);
       ``(17) the term `OIRA' means the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs;
       ``(18) the term `regulation'--
       ``(A) means an agency statement of general applicability 
     and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force 
     and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, 
     or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or 
     practice requirements of an agency; and
       ``(B) does not include such a statement if--
       ``(i) issued in accordance with the formal rulemaking 
     provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5;
       ``(ii) the statement pertains to a military or foreign 
     affairs function of the United States, other than procurement 
     regulations and regulations involving the import or export of 
     nondefense articles and services;
       ``(iii) the statement is limited to an agency organization, 
     management, or personnel matters; or
       ``(iv) the statement is exempted as a regulation by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(19) the term `regulation identifier number' means a 
     unique identification code for regulations, which is designed 
     to assist tracking regulations through the course of 
     development;
       ``(20) the term `regulatory action' means any substantive 
     action by an agency normally published in the Federal 
     Register that promulgates or is expected to lead to the 
     promulgation of a final regulation, including notices of 
     inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices 
     of proposed rulemaking;
       ``(21) the term `significant regulatory action' means any 
     regulatory action that is likely to result in a regulation 
     that may--
       ``(A) have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 
     or more;
       ``(B) adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
     sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
     environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities;
       ``(C) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
     with an action taken or planned by another agency;
       ``(D) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
     entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
     rights and obligations of recipients therein; or
       ``(E) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of 
     legal mandates;
       ``(22) the term `small business' has the meaning given the 
     term `small-business concern' in section 3 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632); and
       ``(23) the term `State' means each of the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, each territory or possession of the 
     United States, and each federally recognized Indian tribe.''.
       (d) Deadline for Issuance of Guidance.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs shall issue any guidance required by section 3522 of 
     title 44, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 115-21. 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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 1, 2017, on page H1438, the following appeared: . . . the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment,
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: . . . the report, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Mitchell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 115-21.
  Mr. MITCHELL. 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 7, line 2, strike ``Administrator shall work with 
     interested'' and insert the following: ``head of each agency 
     shall submit the program descriptions required in 
     subparagraph (B) to the Administrator. The Administrator 
     shall work with other interested''.
       Page 7, beginning on line 16, strike ``April 1 and October 
     1'' and insert ``March 15 and September 15''.
       Page 8, beginning on line 17, strike ``analysis or 
     quantification'' and insert ``clear summary''.
       Page 15, beginning on line 16, strike ``written request by 
     the Administrator or the head of the agency. Such request 
     shall be granted unless the nonrequesting party denies the 
     request in writing within 5 days after receipt of the request 
     for extension.'' and insert the following: ``mutual agreement 
     of the Administrator and the head of the agency. For each 30 
     day extension, the Administrator shall make publicly 
     available online a written explanation, including the reasons 
     for the extension and an estimate of the expected conclusion 
     date.''.
       Page 15, line 22, strike ``complete'' and insert 
     ``conclude''.
       Page 19, line 14, strike ``assess'' and insert ``review''.
       Page 20, line 7, strike ``and provide those written 
     comments to the submitting agency''.
       Page 21, beginning on line 20, strike ``Within 24 hours 
     after the conclusion of the OIRA review under this section, 
     the head of the submitting agency shall provide the 
     Administrator with'' and insert the following: ``As soon as 
     practicable and before publication in the Federal Register of 
     a significant regulatory action for which OIRA concluded 
     review under this section, the head of the submitting agency 
     shall make available to the Administrator''.
       Page 22, beginning on line 6, strike ``On the earlier of 3 
     days after OIRA completes the review of any agency 
     significant regulatory action under section 3523, the date on 
     which such agency publishes the regulatory action in the 
     Federal Register, or the date on which the agency announces'' 
     and insert the following: ``On the earlier of the date on 
     which an agency publishes a significant regulatory action 
     reviewed under section 3523 in the Federal Register, the 
     agency otherwise makes the significant regulatory action 
     publicly available, or the agency announces''.
       Page 22, line 20, insert ``senior level officials at'' 
     after ``between''.
       Page 24, line 20, insert after ``Administrator'' the 
     following: ``and a written explanation of the exemption, 
     including the date of the decision and the reasons for 
     exempting the specific statement, is made publically 
     available online''.
       Page 25, strike lines 1 through 7 and insert the following:
       ``(20) the term `regulatory action' means--
       ``(A) any substantive action by an agency normally 
     published in the Federal Register that promulgates or is 
     expected to lead to the promulgation of a final regulation, 
     including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed 
     rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking; or
       ``(B) any agency statement of general applicability and 
     future effect, other than a substantive action described in 
     subparagraph (A), which sets forth a policy on a statutory, 
     regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a 
     statutory or regulatory issue;''.
       Page 26, insert after line 16 the following:
       (e) Effective Date.--Section 3524 of title 44, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall take effect 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.

       No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 
     requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act. 
     Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts 
     otherwise authorized.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, this amendment makes technical changes to 
H.R. 1009 to ensure consistency in dates and terms, require OIRA to 
review significant guidance, and prohibit authorization of additional 
funds. It allows OIRA 4 weeks to review the Unified Agenda submissions, 
requires a mutual agreement to extend the regulatory review beyond 90 
days, and requires a written explanation of each 30 days of the 
extension.
  That is critical. They must explain to us, to the people, any 
extension.
  It clarifies the timing of the post-review disclosure to occur as 
soon as the agency makes the proposed final rule public, clarifies that 
disclosure of interagency communication is limited to exchanges with 
senior-level OIRA staff, requires a written explanation

[[Page H1439]]

for any exempt regulations, and expands OIRA to review the guidance 
document per a Bush-era executive order.

                              {time}  1645

  This amendment primarily makes technical changes to the bill that 
were developed in consultation with OIRA staff. We took their concerns 
and suggestions into account, and we incorporated most of those in this 
amendment. For example, this amendment clarifies the review extension 
process that has been the subject of some conversation here.
  Our minority counterparts have claimed that OIRA has 90 days, plus a 
30-day extension to review under current executive order. That is 
clearly not true under the executive order or in practice. Under the 
Obama administration, OIRA review, at times, exceeded 2 years without 
explanation. This limitless extension is permissible under the 
governing executive order, which allows an automatic 30-day extension 
at the request of OIRA and a limitless extension at the request of the 
agency.
  We have heard that when OIRA needs that additional time, they simply 
call up an agency and ask for an extension. So this bill requires 
transparency in the review process, puts limits on that, and requires 
the disclosure of that.
  OIRA has suggested the term is a mutual agreement between the 
agencies so that, in fact, we could put limits on the review and 
extension process.
  Another important addition to this amendment is that we are extending 
OIRA's review to guidance documents. This is not a new practice. In 
2007, President Bush issued Executive Order 13422, which extended 
OIRA's review to guidance documents.
  While President Obama rescinded that executive order, OIRA 
Administrator Shelanski affirmed to the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee in the past Congress that OIRA should continue the practice 
of reviewing significant guidance documents.
  These guidance documents will only rise to the level of OIRA review 
if they meet the significant standard.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment does not fix the 
flaws in the bill we are considering.
  One of the major flaws in the bill is the authority it gives to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to hold up rules 
indefinitely. This amendment attempts to address that concern by 
requiring that any extension be agreed to by both the White House and 
the agency issuing the rule.
  It is just not realistic to believe that an agency whose top official 
is appointed by the President would tell the White House it cannot have 
an extension if the White House asks. This amendment also does nothing 
to address the concern that the bill could interfere with other laws.
  The Natural Resources Defense Council sent a letter to House Members 
opposing H.R. 1009. That letter states:
  ``The bill would also revive legislative language that Congress 
repealed elsewhere because it made it impossible to protect the public. 
Specifically, in H.R. 1009, OIRA is charged with ensuring that a 
regulation imposes the least burden on society. Congress removed such 
language when it updated the Toxic Substances Control Act because the 
phase had made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass 
judicial muster, even when the chemical was asbestos, well known to be 
a potent carcinogen.''
  This amendment also includes language that says that no funds shall 
be authorized to carry out the bill. This does not change the fact that 
the CBO estimates that the bill will result in $3 million in direct 
spending. That is money that Congress has not appropriated that 
independent agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have to spend.
  CBO also estimates that the bill would change the operations of the 
Federal Reserve, which would result in $2 million in reduced revenues.
  CBO also estimates that agencies would have to spend $4 million in 
appropriated funds each year to comply with the requirements of this 
bill. Making agencies comply with additional requirements without 
giving them more money means that agencies will have to choose between 
which requirements they comply with and which they ignore.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, one brief comment, which is we are perfectly 
comfortable with the cost of $20 million, given the billions of dollars 
that the regulatory system currently costs businesses and taxpayers. We 
think it is a small investment to, in fact, have regulations make 
sense, not duplicate, not be overburdensome; and we suggest that it is 
a small cost given the overall cost to running the Federal Government 
to actually get regulation dialed back to some controllable level.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I am just so grateful that my colleague 
is interested in making investments, monetary investments, with 
taxpayers' dollars. I will be looking to him and his other cosponsors 
and supporters when we are looking for investing in working class 
Americans and working people and protecting health care and other 
benefits when we have the budget discussions.
  I have no further statements at this time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 115-21.
  Mr. BUCK. 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 2, line 19, strike ``and''.
       Page 2, line 22, strike ``entities.'' and insert 
     ``entities; and''.
       Page 2, after line 22, insert the follow new subparagraph:
       ``(D) the methods used to ensure agencies coordinate with 
     State, local, and Tribal governments.''.
       Page 4, after line 14, insert the following new clause (and 
     redesignate subsequent clauses accordingly):
       ``(v) A summary of the agency's plan to coordinate with 
     State, local, and Tribal governments throughout the 
     regulatory process.''.
       Page 8, line 16, strike ``and''.
       Page 8, line 18, strike ``benefits.'' and insert 
     ``benefits; and''.
       Page 8, after line 18, insert the following new clause:
       ``(iii) efforts to coordinate with State, local, and Tribal 
     governments.''.
       Page 9, line 23, insert ``and policies'' after regulations.
       Page 13, after line 14, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(6) An explanation of agency efforts to coordinate with 
     State, local, and Tribal governments throughout the 
     regulatory process.''.
       Page 18, line 4, strike ``appropriate'' and insert 
     ``impacted''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers State, local, and 
tribal governments by ensuring they have a say in the regulatory 
process.
  H.R. 1009 already codifies and improves upon the practices of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. My amendment strengthens 
the language even further, requiring OIRA to hold Federal agencies 
accountable for coordinating and consulting with State, local, and 
tribal governments before issuing new regulations. In other words, we 
are giving governors, local officials, and tribal leaders a say in the 
regulations that affect them. These local officials know what their 
communities need much better than the bureaucrats in Washington.
  Unfortunately, our Federal agencies have a habit of issuing 
regulations and policies without consulting local and State 
governments. For example, we just need to look at the EPA waters of the 
United States rule.

[[Page H1440]]

  Historically, States have had significant authority over water 
management. Governors have worked with local and tribal leaders to set 
up their own laws and regulations to ensure that water is properly 
allocated, that water meets certain quality standards, and that water 
in their State is protected from misuse.
  The EPA's WOTUS rule is excessive and burdensome because they 
disregarded the role of the States in crafting waterway regulations. 
The agency held no substantive consultation with State governments 
prior to issuing the rule, despite States' historical roles in 
regulating their water supplies, despite the State-level experts who 
could have helped the EPA craft a better regulation, despite President 
Clinton's Executive Order 13132 ensuring that Federal agencies consult 
with State, local, and tribal officials before issuing a rule.
  Federal officials never gave State, local, and tribal officials the 
opportunity to explain how their States were currently handling the 
situation and how this rule could negatively impact their 
jurisdictions. Since the EPA bureaucrats barreled ahead without State, 
local, or tribal input, they proposed an overreaching rule.
  This amendment would require the EPA and other Federal agencies to 
account for how proposed rules will affect impacted States, localities, 
and tribes.
  The amendment under consideration simply requires Washington to 
listen to and learn from local governments because local governments 
are closer to the people. And the people of this Nation should have a 
say in the rules and regulations that are affecting their livelihoods.
  In closing, this amendment is simple. It ensures that regulatory 
agencies talk with State, local, and tribal leaders throughout the 
regulatory process.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do 
not oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, this amendment would require agencies to 
report on their efforts to coordinate with State, local, and tribal 
governments throughout the regulatory process. I agree that it is 
important that State, local, and tribal governments are properly 
included in the regulatory process. The amendment, however, simply adds 
new requirements without addressing the flaws in the underlying bill.
  The amendment fails to address the fact that this bill does not 
exclude independent agencies from its coverage. Congress designed 
independent agencies to be just that, independent.
  The amendment fails to include an offset for the additional $20 
million in administrative costs that this bill will likely cost Federal 
agencies.
  The amendment also fails to insert a provision into the bill to 
ensure that OIRA reviews do not contradict existing laws. The amendment 
also fails to mandate a specific timeframe within which OIRA must 
complete its review.
  The amendment simply does nothing to improve the numerous 
deficiencies in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 115-21.
  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 4, after line 14, insert the following new clause (and 
     redesignate the subsequent clauses accordingly):
       ``(v) A description of any action taken by the agency to 
     ensure that each planned significant regulatory action is not 
     duplicative or conflicting with any other existing or planned 
     regulatory action.''.
       Page 22, after line 21, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly):
       ``(b) Agency Disclosure.--Each agency that submits a 
     significant regulatory actions to OIRA under section 3522 or 
     3523 shall maintain on the website of the agency the 
     following:
       ``(1) A list of each active regulatory action, including 
     the status of the regulatory action or a link to each entry 
     on the unified agenda.
       ``(2) The most recent regulatory plan of the agency.
       ``(3) A link to each record disclosed under subsection 
     (a).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, 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. Mr. Chair, my amendment seeks to strengthen the 
underlying bill in two ways. First, my amendment requires agencies to 
proactively consider whether their actions are duplicative or 
conflicting. As Iowans and all Americans know too well, the maze of the 
Federal bureaucracy can too often be confusing and contradicting.
  This long overdue provision holds the agency proposing the regulation 
accountable to prevent the growing red tape strangling our economy and 
jobs engine.
  The Federal regulatory environment over the past few decades has 
allowed agencies to operate unchecked, leading to overlapping and 
conflicting rules which come at a riveting cost to the economy, the 
taxpayer, and to jobs.
  So by requiring agencies to proactively consider duplication as part 
of their regulatory plans, credibility rears itself. We don't need 
duplicity. We don't need to waste resources and time in the Federal 
Government.
  Secondly, my amendment works to increase regulatory transparency by 
improving the public's access to information. By requiring each agency 
to maintain a list of every active regulatory action submitted to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on its website, we can 
shine the light on agencies' rules and regulations, which, as we know, 
have the full effect of law. This would include a list of all active 
regulatory actions, the agency's most recent regulatory plan, and a 
link to all records submitted to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs for review.
  In closing, many of our constituents may be unfamiliar with the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and its role and may not 
know where to find important information on regulatory actions. So 
simply creating a link on an agency website or websites to the records 
of OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, making this 
available online is a simple change and low burden for a considerable 
benefit. It is all about transparency. It is all about the taxpayers' 
access to information.
  I appreciate the leadership of the chairman and the author of this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this amendment because 
it is duplicative of requirements already in place and will waste 
limited agency resources through additional burdensome requirements.
  On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563 
requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing rules. 
Section 6 of that executive order requires each agency to 
``periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine 
whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, 
or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more 
effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''

                              {time}  1700

  There can be no real doubt that this executive order covers the 
review and elimination of duplicative and conflicting regulatory 
actions. Frankly, the elimination of regulations that are duplicative 
or conflicting is one of the most efficient actions an agency can take 
to make its regulatory program more effective and less burdensome.

[[Page H1441]]

  Forcing agencies to spend time and resources to describe what they 
are already doing is wasteful and unduly burdensome. Agencies already 
keep the public apprised of their regulatory activities through the 
easily-accessible websites reginfo.gov and regulations.gov, both of 
which are managed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 
Through these websites, the public can search for rules, comments, 
adjudications, and supporting documents. The public can also access 
each agency's unified agenda, which contains the regulatory agenda for 
each agency.
  The public can also access a list of pending agency rules. Each of 
these rules has easily accessible links that can allow the public to 
obtain further information about the rule, including its status and 
Executive Order 12866 meetings about the rule.
  This amendment does nothing to improve the deficiencies in H.R. 1009, 
and will force agencies to waste their time and limited resources on 
work that is already being done. I urge Members to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit of this 
debate with my colleague across the aisle. This adds extra bite to what 
may already be in place, oversight and accountability, and Congress has 
a role in this.
  So while I appreciate the spirit of what my colleague said, and what 
has been done in the past, we want to give it extra teeth. Also, 
transparency and access to taxpayer information is so crucial. So I 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. PLASKETT. 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 Iowa will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Meadows

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 115-21.
  Mr. MEADOWS. 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 12, line 8, insert after ``action.'' the following: 
     ``OIRA shall maintain a log of each agency consultation with 
     OIRA before submitting the significant regulatory action for 
     review under this section, including the date of the 
     consultation, the name of each agency official involved with 
     the consultation, and a description of the purpose of the 
     consultation.''.
       Page 22, line 19, strike ``and''.
       Page 22, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 22, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) a list of each consultation described under section 
     3523(b).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership of the 
chairman of the full committee on matters of transparency and 
accountability. I can tell you that there is no one who has a greater 
definitive desire to make sure that we hold our government accountable 
and certainly accountable to the American people.
  So, it is with that goal in mind that I rise to ask my colleagues to 
support an amendment that we are offering that would actually just keep 
a log of any of the pre-review consultations with agencies that OIRA 
actually has and conducts, and to publish that list upon completion of 
review.
  Dating back to some 2003, the Government Accountability Office had 
made the recommendation about increasing this transparency at the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. GAO actually made one 
recommendation targeted at what they call informal review, Mr. 
Chairman, that OIRA conducts before an agency actually formally submits 
a rule for review.
  Indeed, the GAO recommended that the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget should define a transparency requirement that 
would be applicable to agencies and OIRA, in Section 6 of Executive 
Order 12866, in such a way that would not include not only the formal 
review, but it would also include the informal review period when OIRA 
says that it has sometimes, considering some of the most important 
facts as it relates to new rules.
  This recommendation remains unimplemented today, and I can tell you, 
Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of hearings where we have had this 
particular group in. I know my colleagues, the gentleman opposite from 
Virginia, and I believe that OIRA plays a critical role. And yet, at 
the same time, some of these meetings were going on without the 
knowledge, and even after the fact, when they went into effect, and we 
had really no understanding of some of the deliberation that went on.
  So this is just a great transparency, commonsense amendment, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and it is unfortunate because 
we believe that this amendment, on its own, is something that would 
draw bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this amendment is attached to 
H.R. 1009, because the amendment would make the role of OIRA in the 
rulemaking process more transparent.
  The Government Accountability Office has consistently found that OIRA 
is not transparent about its involvement in shaping rules. The GAO 
testified to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in March of 
2016, that it has made 25 recommendations to OMB to improve its 
process, but OMB has only implemented six of those recommendations.
  This amendment would be a step in the right direction. And as usual, 
my colleague, the esteemed gentleman from North Carolina, always comes 
up with rational, well-reasoned amendments and ideas that can be 
supported across the aisle; and for that, you know, we believe and we 
are hopeful that Mr. Meadows will work with the committee on a 
bipartisan basis to pursue these types of productive transparency 
reforms.
  It, unfortunately, does not fix the problems with the underlying bill 
and is rather packaged with a partisan bill the House is considering 
today. For this reason, I am in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, and, as a gifted 
orator, and certainly a gifted attorney, I appreciate her compliments. 
And although not all might agree with her assessment of the reasonable 
fashion of which I craft particular amendments, I do appreciate the 
fact that she recognizes it in this case.
  She also knows that, in doing this, working in a bipartisan way, is 
something that, on this particular committee, Oversight and Government 
Reform, Mr. Chairman, we have had just a wonderful history of being 
able to work in a real way. And so she certainly has my commitment to 
continue to try to perfect the language in making sure that 
transparency is held paramount.
  That being said, I don't intend to withdraw the amendment because 
there are two ways things get done here in Washington, D.C., slow and 
never. And if we just remember that, this particular day, hopefully we 
will put this in place.
  But the esteemed gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has my 
commitment to work with her in a bipartisan way to perfect any language 
in legislation

[[Page H1442]]

that may come up after this particular bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, the fact that the esteemed gentleman of 
North Carolina is willing to work with me means that it has been a 
wonderful day for me, and I am just so glad because I understand, 
although I don't always agree with everything that he says, and I know 
that the gentleman from North Carolina's heart is in the right place; 
that he is working towards resolutions of issues; that he is principled 
in his beliefs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I just want to associate myself with the 
underlying intent of my friend from North Carolina. He is right. At our 
hearings, we did discover flaws in OIRA's process. And I think that his 
amendment is designed to try to address that and to inject some very 
needed transparency.
  Unfortunately, because of the underlying bill, I am not going to 
oppose my friend's amendment, but I do share the concern of my friend, 
the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, and will be opposing the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the two colleagues opposite for 
their gracious remarks and understand their reluctance to support it 
based on their concerns with the underlying bill. I, again, reaffirm my 
commitment to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that transparency 
is the key for the day.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 115-21.
  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 22, line 5, strike ``Public disclosure'' and insert 
     ``Disclosure''.
       Page 22, after line 24, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Recordkeeping.--The Administrator shall ensure any 
     record associated with a significant regulatory action 
     submitted to OIRA under section 3522 or 3523 is easily 
     accessible for a period of time consistent with approved 
     records disposition schedules for the agency, in a manner 
     that all records associated with a significant regulatory 
     action can be promptly submitted to Congress upon request.''.
       Page 23, after line 4, strike the item relating to section 
     3524 and insert the following new item:

``3524. Disclosure of regulatory review.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, 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, this amendment requires OIRA to maintain 
records on each significant regulatory action reviewed such that it is 
easily accessible and transferrable when responding to congressional 
requests.
  Unfortunately, in the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, the committee 
asked for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA--asked 
Administrator Shelanski for records relating to the review of the 
Waters of the United States, often known as WOTUS, and that rulemaking 
process. The administrator repeatedly failed to take the requests 
seriously, which led me, as the chairman of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, to issue a subpoena in July of 2015.
  Even upon issuance of a subpoena, OIRA resisted responding to the 
request, blowing past deadlines and being totally nonresponsive. We 
held multiple hearings. We conducted transcribed interviews. We had 
lengthy staff-to-staff conversations, but still OIRA did not seem to 
take the request seriously. I don't know how much money they wasted in 
time and effort to slow this process down and resist our being able to 
get the information that they said they had in order to make this 
decision.
  It was not until the committee, myself, as the chairman, getting on 
the phone with the head of OMB, when I told him that I had every 
intention to hold Mr. Shelanski in contempt and issue a contempt 
report, that we actually received a full set of documents. This was 
well past a year since the initial request. You should not have to go 
through those gyrations whatsoever.
  I will think the resistance was largely a political maneuvering--this 
is my own opinion--by the administration that did not want us to see 
how rushed, incomplete, and politically involved this regulatory review 
was. That is my own personal opinion.
  But for those who are here and the future generations, it seems 
reasonable that they have to have their act in order if they are 
actually going to issue a rule. And if Congress asks for the underlying 
information, as Representatives of the people, that should be easily 
transferrable to Congress upon request.
  That is what this amendment does. This is why it should pass, and 
that is what this amendment is intended to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. However, 
like the manager's amendment, it does nothing to improve the bill. This 
amendment, in fact, really does not move the needle at all.
  Agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, are required 
to preserve records according to the records schedules under the 
Federal Records Act and regulations issued by the National Archives and 
Records Administration.
  This amendment says that OIRA must do what it is already required to 
do. This amendment provides a platform to express frustration with 
OIRA's response to a subpoena issued by the chairman during the Obama 
administration, as demonstrated by his statements just a few moments 
ago.
  I look forward to him expressing the same outrage if the current 
administration does not provide documents that the Members on this side 
of the aisle, the Democratic members of the committee, request.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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.

                              {time}  1715


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 115-21.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. 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 26, after line 16, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (e) Exemption for Independent Regulatory Agencies.--The 
     provisions of sections 3522, 3523, and 3524 of title 44, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), do not apply 
     to an independent establishment as defined in section 104 of 
     title 5, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to note I do oppose 
the underlying bill. This bill would require independent agencies, for 
the first time, to submit their rules to OIRA for review.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would increase 
direct spending by $3 million and reduce revenues by $2 million. CBO 
also estimates that the bill would cost Federal agencies an additional 
$20 million in administrative costs for compliance.
  The reason the bill costs money is because it does not simply codify 
an executive order as its proponents suggest. The bill would require 
independent agencies, for the first time, to submit

[[Page H1443]]

their rules to OIRA for review. Independent agencies such as the FCC, 
SEC, and CFPB do not currently have to get the approval of the White 
House for regulations they issue.
  Congress designed independent agencies to be just that--independent. 
This bill would enshrine in law the ability for the White House to 
engage in political interference with those agencies.
  The Consumer Federation of America sent a letter to House Members 
today opposing this bill. The letter said, inter alia:

       H.R. 1009 will jeopardize independence of agencies like the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, as well as 
     other independent agencies because it will give the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs the ability to review 
     significant rules. Authorizing OIRA to conduct its own 
     analysis would not only add pressure from the executive 
     branch and add time and expense to that process, but would 
     also give special interests seeking to quash a safety 
     measure, for example, yet another avenue to prevent a rule 
     from ever being promulgated.

  Indeed, one suspects that is the intent of the bill.
  A 2013 editorial in The New York Times warned of the dangers of 
subjecting independent agencies to OIRA review. The editorial foresaw 
what we are now dealing with 4 years later: ``Subjecting independent 
agencies to executive regulatory review would not improve the rule-
making process, but it would ensure that ostensibly regulated 
industries are as unregulated and deregulated as possible.''
  It also said: ``There is no question that making independent agencies 
less independent is a bad idea.''
  My amendment would take care of that by repealing that portion of 
this bill. I urge all Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate working with my 
colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We 
disagree on many things, but we have good debates, and I do appreciate 
the spirit in which Mr. Connolly brings this amendment forward. I enjoy 
working with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), 
and certainly our ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
  I try to accept and work with the minority on all things, but 
certainly amendments that they would like to see move forward. 
Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose this one. I am trying to 
maximize transparency.
  I think what Mr. Mitchell is bringing forward in this bill is the 
right policy in opening up this transparency.
  I see this going in the wrong direction. It would remove existing 
requirements for agencies, such as the EPA or the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, to give notice about upcoming regulations. It 
removes existing requirements, for instance, for the EPA to submit its 
rules to OIRA for review.
  In a March 2015 hearing, in fact, it was Mr. Connolly of Virginia who 
said: ``OIRA boasts an incredibly hardworking, and dedicated corps of 
career staff that is first-rate when it comes to conducting 
quantitative analysis that weighs complex economic costs against 
potential benefits.''
  I happen to agree with Mr. Connolly. I think there are good, 
hardworking, and dedicated people who are committed to this country, 
and they work hard. That is why I think this hardworking, dedicated 
corps of people who work as career staff should offer first-rate, as we 
call it, analysis for all regulations, not just some of them. Let's do 
it for all of them. I think that is fair.
  We want to know that the regulations will be effective in achieving 
their goals. We have to always keep sight, Mr. Chairman, that all of us 
in the Federal Government work for the American people. They pay the 
bills and they have to live under these regulations. We should maximize 
that transparency, whether they are, quote, unquote, independent or 
part of the executive agency.
  If you are affected by a rule, you are affected by a rule, and people 
who are affected by those have every right to see what helped create 
that. So I don't think there should be an exemption that is carved out 
under this bill, and that is why I stand in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Utah.
  I also enjoy working with him in finding common ground; however, I 
find it amusing to have myself quoted on the floor by the distinguished 
chairman because, just a few minutes ago, he was talking about how 
difficult it was to get compliance from OIRA to provide documents 
requested on a bipartisan basis by the committee. Just a little bit 
before that, my friend from North Carolina and I agreed on some real 
problems in terms of the process OIRA uses in the process of its 
mission. So it is hardly like our committee found or I found that OIRA 
is without problem.
  I believe the bottom line here, however, is independent means 
independent. We created these agencies for a reason and to be 
independent of White House political interference for a reason. I would 
submit, respectfully, now, more than ever, we want to preserve the 
independence of those organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular 
amendment. I think it takes us in the wrong direction. We need to 
maximize transparency, and this will help us achieve that.
  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. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. 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.


                    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 B of House Report 
115-21 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Young of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Young) 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 265, 
noes 158, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               AYES--265

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx

[[Page H1444]]


     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kihuen
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     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
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--158

     Adams
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hudson
     Hurd
     LaMalfa
     Nadler
     Richmond
     Walden

                              {time}  1748

  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas and Ms. MOORE changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. GROTHMAN, AMODEI, COHEN, DELANEY, THOMPSON of California, Ms. 
MATSUI, Messrs. KIND, MOULTON, BEYER, DUNCAN of South Carolina, and 
MARCHANT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) 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 234, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               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
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     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.
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     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
     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
     Cooper
     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
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     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
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci

[[Page H1445]]


     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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Doggett
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Hudson
     Hurd
     Nadler
     O'Rourke
     Ratcliffe

                              {time}  1753

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Mr. McClintock, 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. 
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, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 156, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cartwright moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1009 to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new subsection:
       (e) Exemption for the Office of Government Ethics.--The 
     provisions of sections 3522, 3523, and 3524 of title 44, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), do not apply 
     to the Office of Government Ethics.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the 
bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended. This motion to recommit is to defend ethical conduct 
throughout our government.
  In response to the Watergate scandal, Congress created the Office of 
Government Ethics to protect against unethical behavior in the 
executive branch. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a 
bill to strengthen the Office of Government Ethics by removing it from 
the Office of Personnel Management and giving it greater independence 
from the White House.

                              {time}  1800

  Now Congress is attempting to undo this vision of a strong, 
independent Office of Government Ethics at a time when we need it more 
than ever. This bill would put the Office of Government Ethics right 
back under the control of the White House, and that is why this motion 
to recommit simply excludes OGE from this bill.
  We appreciate the need for strong ethical guidelines most strongly 
when people act unethically. Every day we witness this White House 
struggle with honesty and credibility. We heard the promises last 
night, the ones we have been hearing all along.
  When you promise to create family-sustaining jobs by revitalizing 
American infrastructure and then we find out he means to do it with tax 
breaks to huge corporations and none of the regular guarantees that the 
people actually doing the work will be treated right and paid fairly, 
that is when you have a credibility problem.
  When you promote yourself as a man of the people but then we find out 
you have stuffed your Cabinet with out-of-touch billionaire friends, 
that is when you have a credibility problem.
  When you promise to fix America's education system but then we see 
you appoint Betsy DeVos to head the Department of Education, someone 
with no education experience, someone who wants to gut public 
education, that is when you have a credibility problem.
  When you address Congress and promise to repeal and replace the 
Affordable Care Act in a way that guarantees increased access, coverage 
of preexisting conditions, and that costs will go down but no one in 
America knows how you plan to pay for that, that is when you have a 
credibility problem.
  We don't need a White House with a credibility problem. We need these 
promises the President has made to come true. We need a stronger 
economy full of family-sustaining jobs. We need Social Security, 
Medicaid, and Medicare to be protected. We need to have an executive 
branch we can trust. This is our future, and we need to be smart about 
it. I believe that smart people trust, but they verify.
  The problem is we do seem to have a President whose relationship with 
the truth is, at best, a nodding acquaintance. This is why we need a 
strong Office of Government Ethics more than ever.
  Ronald Reagan was right; it needs to be an office independent of 
control by the White House.
  We need it to keep our leaders from enriching themselves in public 
office, to keep our leaders honest, to help us trust, but verify that 
our elected officials do what is best for the American people and not 
their own pocketbooks.
  We need it to ensure that our President is acting in our best 
interest with nations around the world. We have already seen this 
President and his staff repeatedly lie and refuse to answer questions 
about their business and political ties with dealings in Russia. We 
have seen, at a minimum, improper and potentially far worse collusion 
over rigging an election, and we have seen the administration attempt 
to influence investigations into their dealings with Russia.
  We need an Office of Government Ethics to be independent of the White 
House because this President has used diplomatic relations to promote 
his businesses abroad at the expense of the American taxpayer. He 
promised to drain the swamp and immediately started appointing his 
billionaire buddies to Cabinet positions and rush their hearings 
through before they could even complete the ethics process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has expired.
  The Chair reminds Members to refrain from engaging in personalities 
toward the President.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit by my colleague.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle for the robust process by which we considered this bill.
  The bill came to the floor through regular order in the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. We had a full markup which allowed for 
Members on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments and insight. We 
had healthy debate on a number of amendments, and we just voted on some 
of them.

[[Page H1446]]

  This bill codifies existing policy with changes only to include 
independent agencies and improve government transparency.
  I oppose the motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
motion and vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 1009, if ordered, and passage of H.J. 
Res. 83.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 234, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               AYES--193

     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
     Cleaver
     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)
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     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
     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
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hudson
     Nadler

                              {time}  1811

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam 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 241, 
nays 184, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 120]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     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
     Cooper
     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
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     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 (FL)
     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
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)

[[Page H1447]]


     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     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
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     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
     Gonzalez (TX)
     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
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     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
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carson (IN)
     Hudson
     Nadler
     Rutherford

                              {time}  1818

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

                          ____________________