Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 36 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)

[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.

____________________