[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 37 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1469-H1484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 1004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Katko). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
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. 1004.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0916
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. 1004) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to
require the publication of information relating to pending agency
regulatory actions, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 1004 is sponsored by Representative Tim Walberg, my colleague
from Michigan. Cosponsors include Representative Farenthold,
Representative Meadows, Representative Gosar, and myself.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of
2017.
Every year, agencies promulgate thousands of new regulations and
impose billions of dollars in regulatory costs on the American public.
Those rules are conceived of, developed, written, and imposed by
unelected agency officials--bureaucrats.
In return for the authority to issue regulations, Congress and the
American people require two simple things from agencies. First,
agencies must inform the public about their intended regulatory
actions--early and accurately--to provide ample time for thoughtful
feedback and consideration from the public. Second, we want the
agencies to listen to what the public has to say about the proposed
regulatory action.
Making sure the public has an opportunity to participate in this
process is key. The public comment period is an essential part of
upholding our democratic values. It ensures Americans have a voice
heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.
H.R. 1004 helps preserve and strengthen the integrity of the public
comment process in several ways. First, the bill defines the parameters
of how an agency should communicate when asking for and offering a
proposal and asking for public feedback. H.R. 1004 requires the agency
to identify itself in communications on the proposal. Imagine that. We
ask them to identify themselves. The agency must clearly state whether
it is accepting comments or considering alternatives.
Most importantly, agency communications during this process must use
a neutral, unbiased tone. This bill requires agencies to do only what
you would expect them to do if the request for feedback was genuine and
sincere. This bill will uphold the purpose and value of the notice and
comment process enshrined in the Administrative Procedures Act.
When issuing new regulations, agencies must provide notice of the
regulation and accept comments from the public before finalizing the
regulation. Often, regulated entities, small businesses, and subject-
matter experts can provide new insights and perspectives agency
officials simply do not have and do not understand. The notice and
comment period allows the public to provide valuable insight to the
agencies to help them make better regulations, more effective
regulations, and minimize the adverse impacts.
However, not every agency takes this opportunity to really listen to
the public. Often, agencies develop a proposed regulation and assume it
is the end of the story. In effect, agencies reduce the notice and
comment process to checking the box.
A perfect example, unfortunately, is when EPA developed the waters of
the United States rule, known as WOTUS, EPA's behavior during the
notice and comment period indicated that the EPA had little interest in
listening to the public. Quite the contrary.
EPA used Thunderclap, an online social media platform, to disseminate
government-sourced messages through unaffiliated individuals to
encourage the public to provide positive comments. They did not
identify themselves and used a third party to source comments that
would support their
[[Page H1470]]
perspective. The goal was clearly to pad the administrative record with
positive feedback rather than soliciting genuine input in an effort to
measure the rule's effect on the public.
In fact, the Government Accountability Office found the EPA undertook
a covert propaganda campaign by soliciting social media comments in
support of their proposed rule. Let me say that again: a covert
propaganda campaign.
GAO also told EPA to report this violation to the President and
Congress because the agency's appropriations were not available for
those prohibited purposes. They spent taxpayer money--our money--on
something that was prohibited.
H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, seeks to shine a
light on how agencies are communicating about pending regulatory
actions. This bill simply tells agencies they need to keep to the facts
and avoid soliciting support when they ought to be soliciting comments.
H.R. 1004 also establishes transparency requirements for the agency
in how it communicates to the public. The bill requires agencies to
post on their website some basic information about each communication
about a pending regulatory action. For each communication, the public
will be able to see a copy of the communication, the intended audience,
the method of communication, and the date it was issued--simple
transparency expectations. Additionally, H.R. 1004 requires agencies to
post information online about each of their regulatory actions.
Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Integrity Act will bring integrity back
to the rulemaking process with transparency and simple guidelines for
effective and appropriate communication.
The Regulatory Integrity Act is a good, bipartisan bill. This bill
received support in the previous Congress, and the House of
Representatives passed the bill last Congress.
On February 14, 2017, the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform approved this bill without amendment.
I thank Congressman Walberg for his leadership on this issue. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be with my distinguished colleague
from Michigan on this legislation, which is part of a package of bills
brought forward by the majority, which we believe undermine the ability
of Federal agencies to effectively promote the public interest.
To begin with, it is quite clear that this legislation is
unnecessary. Current law already bans the use of agency funds for
``publicity or propaganda purposes.'' Current law also currently bars
agency employees from grassroots lobbying campaign designed to pressure
Members of Congress to support or to oppose agency proposals.
So, at the very least, all of this is duplicative, which wouldn't be
so bad just to add another level of red tape and legislation, except
for this: If you look at the legislation, under Restriction, part 2, it
says:
``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers
to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial
communication that requests comment on or provides information
regarding the pending agency regulatory action, may not--
``(A) directly advocate, in support of or against the pending agency
regulatory action, for the submission of information to form part of
the record of review for the pending agency regulatory action. . . .''
So let's parse that for a moment. What they are saying is that the
agency may not directly advocate to the public: Please tell us whether
you are for or against this regulation and why.
They are not trying to prevent a viewpoint-specific propaganda
intervention by the agency. This would actually stifle the ability of
the agency to solicit anybody's point of view to go out on Facebook and
ask, ``What is your position about this,'' and to use social media to
solicit the public's input.
So although the legislation masquerades as an attempt to promote
government transparency, it actually radically undercuts government
transparency and the ability of the agencies to solicit the widest
possible input.
It also says that the agency may not appeal to the public or solicit
a third party to undertake advocacy in support of or against the
pending agency regulatory action.
Now, I would have no problem if what they were trying to do is simply
restate the current ban on one-sided propaganda inquiries by an agency
to get one side to come out and support or oppose an agency rulemaking,
but that is already against the law.
What they are trying to do is to cut off the ability of the agency to
solicit any public input on all sides of the issue.
Why would we place that kind of duct tape over the Administrative
Procedure Act?
Well, one thought, if you look at this proposal in the context of
everything else they have brought forward this week, they want to try
to reduce everything to a cost-benefit analysis. That is, what would
the cost to polluters be? What would the cost to the violators of the
public interest be?
They never look at what the benefit to the public is of the
regulations, and they want to do it behind closed doors and then
prevent the agencies from going out and aggressively soliciting the
input of the public on all sides of the issue.
So we don't see what the need for this proposal is. We believe that
it will have a severely chilling effect on the ability of agencies to
do their job. They continually talk about one case, the WOTUS case, the
waters of the United States case, where I cheerfully and readily admit
that the agency went too far in terms of campaigning for its proposal.
But they were called on that. The GAO already determined that they ran
afoul of the prohibitions.
So they have one case which was dealt with completely legitimately
within the law, and they have not cited another case.
I would gladly yield my time to my distinguished colleague from
Michigan if he can invoke one other case where there was a problem or
explain why the resolution of this problem was not sufficient in this
case, because I think everybody understood that the agency had gone too
far. It was dealt with. The problem is over.
So now we have a so-called cure, which is far worse than the
underlying disease because the so-called cure is going to stifle and
chill the ability of every Federal agency in the United States
Government to go out and aggressively solicit public input. That is
what we want in the agency process.
Now, yesterday, they just voted to create a new roving
supercommission that would pore through the rules of all the different
Federal agencies and bring back a package and then ask us to give a
thumbs up or a thumbs down so they can just more readily dismantle
public regulation.
Let's be very clear about it. We're talking about regulation that
protects clean air. They rejected an amendment that would carve out the
Clean Air Act from that bill. We're talking about regulation that
protects clean water. We're talking about regulation that protects the
purity of our food and our drugs. We're talking about regulations that
advance our interests in a clean environment and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions.
So it seems like they want to put the whole Federal regulatory
process into a straitjacket, prevent the public from being involved,
and prevent the agencies from going out and soliciting public input.
That doesn't sound like giving government back to the people. That
sounds like giving government over to billionaires, special interests,
and big corporate powers that have all the lobbyists in Washington and
know how to get things done behind closed doors.
Mr. Chair, I invite my distinguished colleague from Michigan to
address any of the questions I have if there are any examples that he
can provide of problems that would yield the need for such a dramatic
shutdown on the ability of agencies to solicit public input.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who is my colleague and good
friend.
[[Page H1471]]
{time} 0930
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for leading this
floor debate today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R.
1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017.
Regardless of the chatter that I believe simply confuses what we want
to do in good government, this bill, H.R. 1004, is a good government
transparency bill that is simple in nature and seeks to preserve the
integrity of the regulatory process; specifically, the public comment
period.
Whether it is EPA or the Department of Labor or any other agencies or
departments, they have their purpose, but they have to follow the law.
The public comment period is an essential part of upholding our
democratic values because it ensures that Americans will have their
voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.
Agencies must take the comment period seriously. Unfortunately, we
have seen instances where agencies seem to believe that the regulatory
process is simply a perfunctory act that the agency must undertake in
order to reach a prearranged outcome.
This became abundantly clear during the EPA's Waters of the U.S., or
WOTUS, rulemaking process. During that process, Mr. Chairman, the EPA
undertook a campaign to solicit support and artificially inflate the
positive reaction to the WOTUS rule. The EPA used the skewed results as
evidence of public support.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters coming from the
National Association of Home Builders and the Michigan Farm Bureau to
attest to this problem.
National Association of
Home Builders,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.
Hon. Timothy Walberg,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Walberg: On behalf of the 140,000
members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),
I am writing to express NAHB's strong support for H.R. 1004,
the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017. This legislation would
force agencies to follow an open and transparent federal
regulatory rulemaking process by making all aspects of a
rulemaking publicly available and preventing federal agencies
from illegally influencing the public in order to generate
support for a rulemaking.
Federal agencies are prohibited, by law, from engaging in
lobbying, grassroots, and propaganda activities designed to
advance a policy agenda. However, in recent rulemakings, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ignored these
restrictions and used social media platforms to perpetuate
propaganda campaigns that advance their rulemakings. These
actions only support the notion that the agency is not
interested in a transparent and fair rulemaking process.
An excellent example of this is when the EPA created a
social media campaign on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to
counter opposition to its ``Waters of the US'' rulemaking.
The agency concealed the fact that its social media messages
were coming from within the EPA and deceptively engaged in
lobbying efforts designed to kill legislation that was not
favorable to their proposed rulemaking. In December 2015, the
Government Accountability Office released a report outlining
how the EPA participated in covert propaganda and grassroots
lobbying and condemned the agency for violating federal law.
Federal agencies must respect and uphold the law, and the
passage of H.R. 1004 will help to ensure that federal
agencies are not lobbying against America's small businesses.
For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee to support H.R. 1004, the
Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, in order to bring
transparency and neutrality to the regulatory process.
Thank you for giving consideration to our views.
Sincerely,
James W. Tobin III.
____
Michigan Farm Bureau,
Lansing, Michigan, February 13, 2017.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Elijah Cummings,
Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings:
Michigan Farm Bureau strongly supports the Regulatory
Integrity Act of 2017. The bill is a step in the right
direction to hold government agencies accountable and for
citizens to maintain trust in the government that serves
them. Introduced by Rep. Tim Walberg, the bill is scheduled
to come before the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee later this week.
Last year, we heard about an EPA grant being used to fund
whatsupstream.com in the state of Washington. This initiative
used the following billboard message: ``Unregulated
agriculture is putting our waterways at risk'' to urge the
public to contact state elected officials. In a similar
campaign, GAO issued a legal opinion that EPA violated
federal lobbying laws by funding advocacy efforts on the
Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Michigan farmers
are frustrated when they read about federal agencies trying
to sway the public in a way that promotes their own proposed
rule before all stakeholders have had a chance to weigh in
the rule's merits. These examples only undermine the trust
our members place in the agencies meant to serve and protect
our citizens.
We believe it is critical that Congress pass the Regulatory
Integrity Act of 2017. We urge all members of the Committee
to support this bill.
Sincerely,
John Kran,
Associate National Legislative Counsel.
Mr. WALBERG. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office
concluded the EPA overstepped and issued a report saying the EPA
violated the law and undertook ``covert propaganda'' and grassroots
lobbying during the process.
My bill simply seeks to preserve the spirit and purpose of the
regulatory process by simply telling agencies that they need to keep to
the facts and not solicit support when they ought to be soliciting
constructive comments.
H.R. 1004 simply requires an agency to; one, identify itself as the
source of information; two, clearly state whether the agency is
accepting public comments or considering alternatives; and, three, and
most importantly, speak about the regulations in a neutral, unbiased
tone.
People need to have the confidence that the Federal agencies,
regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration,
are open to their insights an constructive criticism.
H.R. 1004 will restore the integrity to our regulatory process by
ensuring agencies are honestly asking for feedback, constructive
criticism, and dialogue about how to improve upon the agency's existing
thoughts, not advocating for a predetermined outcome.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan issue. This bill passed the House
last Congress with bipartisan support. In fact, a similar version was
offered by my colleague, Representative Peterson from Minnesota, as an
amendment to H.R. 5 earlier this year. That amendment was approved with
strong bipartisan support.
So, once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Regulatory
Integrity Act.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, the advocates for the legislation returned to this one single
case, which we all agree about. The GAO ruled that the EPA ran afoul of
the prohibition on propaganda and on campaigning.
So the law worked there. The GAO blew the whistle on that. They
shouldn't be coming out on one side of an issue and running a
propaganda campaign. The government should not be engaged in
propaganda. We all agree to that.
This legislation does something completely different. This
legislation, rather than just saying a good day's work to the GAO for
blowing the whistle, it says: Now we are going to tell all the Federal
agencies and departments that have been out soliciting public input on
all sides of issues, saying there is a regulation that has come up
about clean air, about clean water, about food, about drugs, about the
disposal of nuclear waste, about radioactive materials, and it tells
them you can't do that anymore. You can't go out and solicit public
input.
It places a complete chill on the ability of the government to go out
and invite public participation in our government. Why? They keep
returning to one case where the GAO blew the whistle where everybody
agrees they were out of bounds.
A flag was thrown on the play, but now they want to use that in order
to essentially impose a gag rule on Federal agencies across the land
who are doing our work. The much reviled regulation that the agencies
are engaged in is an attempt to flesh out the laws that we pass in this
body because we don't want to be setting all of the particular rules
about exactly how many pollutants can be in this water, in this
[[Page H1472]]
stream, in this river, in this creek, and so on, because we are not
scientific experts on how many pollutants can be put into the air here
and there. So it is delegated to government agencies.
But when they go through the Administrative Procedure Act and they
have a rule and comment process, they should be able to go out and
invite the public to participate.
Again, I invite my distinguished and thoughtful colleagues on the
other side to cite one other case. Can they cite one case where the GAO
did not blow the whistle? Can they cite some other litany of examples
where there has been a real problem with government agencies being
overzealous where it has not been corrected by the GAO?
The silence is deafening.
They have used the example of one problem that was caught, that was
corrected, in order to try to demolish the ability of Federal agencies
to go out and solicit the public's input.
To me, that is a familiar experience now, because I have been in the
House of Representatives for just 2 months, and, in the committees I
serve on, we continue to vote on bills where we have not had a single
public hearing. We are not hearing from any of the groups.
I have a letter here objecting to this legislation that has been
signed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Association for Justice,
American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial
Reform, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Autistic Self Advocacy
Network, BlueGreen Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean
Water Action, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America,
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress,
Earthjustice, Economic Policy Institute, Environment America,
Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace, Homeowners
Against Deficient Dwellings, Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, and
Agricultural Implement Workers, League of Conservation Voters, National
Association of Consumer Advocates, and on and on and on.
I would like to have heard from these people in this process, but it
seems like all we are getting from the other side is an attempt to have
a curtain of darkness fall over all public process. We would like to
have hearings. We want groups to be involved. But these people were not
invited to testify. They didn't have a chance to opine on this.
Mr. Chair, in general, the problem here is that, rather than making
government more transparent, we are making government more opaque.
Rather than making government more open, we are making government
more closed. Rather than reaching out to the public and inviting it
into the rulemaking process, we are shutting the door and closing the
blinds on it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear to me, even as a freshman: we need
to correct the record here.
My colleague from the minority suggests that somehow, magically, the
GAO just determined they were the police officer, they cried foul, they
stopped them.
Let's be clear about this. First, the GAO intervened because they
were asked to do so by Chairman Inhofe. They investigated after the
chairman asked them to look into it because of the concerns; not in
advance, not because they found it independently, but because it was
such a significant and egregious action that the chairman of the
committee said: We need to look at this. And they did so.
Second, it was after the fact. What they found was that it was so
extraordinarily egregious, they actually cited them for inappropriately
spending taxpayer money.
Now, let's talk about what they did. We talk about chilling
communication. Knowingly, why would you put out something on a social
media site such as Thunderclap sourcing messages, not identifying
yourself, if for any other purpose but to create propaganda? Why would
you do that?
H.R. 1004 simply requires--and I will repeat them, because the
minority seems to have a problem understanding this--the agency
identified itself in its communication on a proposal: hello, this is
the EPA. We are talking about this problem.
They make clear they are accepting public comments for and against:
What do you think about it; what are the problems; will this work?
Imagine that concept.
They require that agencies provide feedback on the comments that is
genuine and sincere and not have already written the final bill--as my
colleagues says, the perfunctory process.
That is what it requires. I have a difficult time understanding how
that chills input from the public. And to be absolutely blunt with you,
if it chills a few bureaucrats from deciding what they think is best
rather than what this body believes is best, or, frankly, what the
courts believe is best, then we have achieved our objective here today.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are finally having some light here on the
subject.
My distinguished colleague and fellow freshman from Michigan is most
concerned about what did take place in the Waters of the United States
case. He praises the GAO for responding to Senator Inhofe's inquiry.
We all agree that the GAO determined that the EPA ran afoul of
existing prohibitions in law on propaganda, on taking a side in an
issue. A flag was called on the play and the problem was dealt with.
If you find a kid shoplifting a candy bar, and you catch him, you
remove him from the store, you tell him not to do it again. You don't
then go pass a law saying that anybody under 18 cannot enter any
commercial establishment in the country. The law worked in that
specific case.
But, you see, they have taken a sledgehammer to a mosquito, and the
mosquito was already killed. So now what they are busting up is the
ability of agencies across the country simply to use the social media
to go out and to solicit and invite public input into the rulemaking
process. What are we afraid of?
Justice Brandeis said that sunshine is the great disinfectant. We
want the public involved. We want the public's engagement.
So, again, I invite my thoughtful colleagues on the other side to
cite one case of an agency doing this that was not dealt with by the
GAO. I can cite you countless examples of cases where Federal agencies
have gone online to invite public input in a completely objective and
neutral way. Now we are creating a chill over that process because of
this ban on soliciting advocacy from the public on either side of the
issue.
So I simply don't get it, and I am puzzled why they continually talk
about one case which was happily resolved under existing law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0945
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record several letters
opposing the bill.
Coaltion for
Sensible Safeguards,
February 28, 2017.
Re House floor vote of H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity
Act.
Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards
(CSS), an alliance of over 150 labor, scientific, research,
good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and
public interest groups, strongly oppose H.R. 1004, the
Regulatory Integrity Act.
The bill is a brazen attack on the public's right to know
by micro-managing the type of information that agencies are
allowed to communicate to all of us when taking actions to
protect the public, our economy, and the environment. An open
government that prioritizes democratic public participation
requires agencies to be able to effectively convey
information to the public and make agency policy positions
clear to the public. This bill will make our government less
open and less democratic and should therefore be rejected.
H.R. 1004 will significantly inhibit federal agencies'
ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and
transparent way regarding its work on important science-based
rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public. As a
result, the bill will lead to
[[Page H1473]]
decreased public awareness and participation in the
rulemaking process in direct contradiction of the
Administrative Procedure Act and agencies' authorizing
statutes, which specifically provide for broad stakeholder
engagement.
Substantial ambiguities in the bill threaten to create
uncertainty and confusion among agencies about what public
communications are permissible, and thus risks discouraging
them from keeping the public apprised of the important work
that they do on its behalf. In an era when agencies should be
increasingly embracing innovative 21st century communications
technologies needed to reach the public, including social
media, H.R. 1004 sends exactly the wrong message.
The legislation strictly prohibits agencies from issuing
``public communications'' that ``emphasize the importance''
of a particular agency action unless the communication has
the ``clear purpose of informing the public of the substance
or status'' of the particular action. The legislation applies
to a wide swath of regulatory actions including rulemakings,
guidance, policy statements, directives and adjudications.
While H.R. 1004 assumes that the distinction between
informing the public of an agency action and emphasizing the
importance of that action is self-evident, in practice the
distinction is anything but clear. As a result, agencies are
likely to avoid any public communications that risk running
afoul of this ambiguous prohibition, no matter how
informative the communication might be for the public.
For example, various executive orders and statutes compel
agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis on their pending
rulemakings, and thus to determine whether the rule's
benefits outweigh its costs. As currently written, the
Regulatory Integrity Act could potentially prohibit an agency
from communicating the results of such an analysis when it
concludes that a particular rule generates net benefits.
After all, that conclusion is tantamount to declaring that
the rule makes society better off on balance. Instead, the
agency would likely be forced to simply share the basic
information that they had conducted a cost-benefit analysis
of the regulation without being able to share the further
crucial information that the regulation's benefits exceeded
the costs. Given that many of the bill's sponsors
enthusiastically endorse the expanded use of cost-benefit
analysis in the rulemaking process, these kinds of arbitrary
prohibitions on communications concerning cost-benefit
analysis seem especially peculiar.
Agencies would encounter this problematic scenario when
deciding to share vital information, such as:
How many lives would be saved by a regulation;
How much property damage would be averted;
How much money consumers would save; and
Any of the other myriad public benefits that regulations
are designed to provide.
The stark absence of any clear bright-lines in the
legislation delineating what is and what is not prohibited
public communications is sure to have a chilling effect on
agencies, with the predictable result that agencies will be
less willing to share crucial information with the public and
that the public will be less informed about government
activities.
H.R. 1004 also will severely impede, rather than enable,
agency use of new communication technologies, most notably
social media platforms, to reach the public. Regulatory
experts and scholars agree that agencies should be using
social media forums and platforms.
Agencies will find it difficult, if not impossible, to
communicate with the public through social media under H.R.
1004 since the bill prevents any usage of social media that
both conveys information about a regulatory action but also
promotes the importance of that action.
For example, the U.S. Department of Interior operates a
Twitter and Instagram account that is very popular with the
public because it regularly features photos of beautiful
landscapes and wildlife from national parks across the United
States. Under the Regulatory Integrity Act, the Department
might be prohibited from posting such photos on Twitter and
Instagram because they are not solely informational in nature
and could be interpreted as promoting the importance of the
department's work in environmental and wildlife preservation.
Enactment of H.R. 1004 will lead to less transparency in
the government, make it more difficult for agencies to use
new communication technologies popular with the public, and
generally chill agency communications with the public on
important matters due to the lack of any bright-line
standards for agencies to follow.
We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1004, the Regulatory
Integrity Act.
Sincerely,
Robert Weissman,
President,
Public Citizen Chair.
____
League of Conservation Voters,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.
Re Oppose H.R. 998, 1004, & 1009--Assaults on Environmental
Safeguards in the Guise of ``Regulatory Reform.''
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,
the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to turn
environmental values into national, state, and local
priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the media.
LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, H.R.
1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act, and H.R. 1009, the OIRA
Insight, Reform, And Accountability Act. LCV joins our
partners in the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an
alliance of consumer, public health, labor, good government,
environmental, and scientific groups--in strongly opposing
this trio of extreme bills that have far-reaching and
damaging consequences for vital public health and
environmental safeguards.
H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, would jeopardize critical
environmental safeguards that have been in place for decades
and would make it extremely difficult to develop new
standards in response to threats to public health and the
environment. This legislation creates a regulatory review
commission that would disregard the public benefits of
environmental safeguards and only consider the costs to
industries. By creating a misguided ``cut-go'' system for
safeguards, this bill would result in key public health
protections being eliminated.
H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act, would
significantly hinder communications between federal agencies
and the public and would discourage agencies from using
social media platforms. This legislation would reduce
government transparency and would leave the public less
informed about government activities. The vague guidelines
about what public communications are allowed would result in
agencies being less willing to share key information with the
public.
H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, And Accountability
Act, would endanger clean air and clean water protections by
opening them up to more litigation. The bill would
effectively rewrite dozens of laws in which Congress mandated
that agencies prioritize public health, safety and the
preservation of clean air and water over concerns about
industry profits.
LCV urges you to REJECT H.R. 998, 1004, & 1009 and will
strongly consider including votes on these bills in the 2017
Scorecard.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.
____
Good Morning Everyone: I am writing to express the
opposition of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) to
the three anti regulation bills that will be voted on on the
House floor this week. The Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017
(SCRUB Act); The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017; and the
OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act all impede the
ability of federal agencies to appropriately protect the
health, safety and well-being of the American public. As a
result, we urge your boss to vote NO on all three bills. See
below and attached for additional information on each bill.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
Sarah Rooney,
Director of Regulatory Affairs,
American Association for Justice.
H.R. 998, The SCRUB Act
The SCRUB Act would establish a new regulatory review
commission charged with identifying duplicative and/or
redundant regulations to repeal. In addition, the bill
provides for a blanket percentage reduction in the cumulative
regulatory cost to industry without adequately considering
the benefits bestowed upon the public by these same
regulations. Under the severe SCRUB Act regulatory cost
considerations, targeted regulations could be repealed even
when the benefits of these rules are significant, appreciated
by the public, and far outweigh the costs.
The SCRUB Act also contains entirely ineffective cut-go
provisions. Under the bill's cut-go provisions, an agency
would be required to remove an existing regulation of equal
or greater cost from its cut-go list before it can issue a
new regulation. As a result of these provisions, agencies
will be unable to respond to any emerging hazard with any new
public regulatory protections or guidance.
H.R. 1004, The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017
The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 significantly limits
the types of communications federal agencies can have with
the public regarding pending regulatory actions and prohibits
agencies from soliciting support for its regulatory actions.
These inappropriately restrictive provisions have two goals:
stymieing important public protections and preventing the
public from knowing about the positive impact pending
regulations may provide.
H.R. 1009, The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act
Lastly, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act
creates yet another duplicative and unnecessary commission to
provide for the repeal of regulations, while also providing
for numerous additional hurdles in the regulatory review
process. It would codify the numerous burdensome regulatory
review requirements and make them subject to judicial review
which would provide for extensive challenge and delay of
important protections. More concerning, this bill would
[[Page H1474]]
severely damage the impact of dozens of Congressionally
passed public interest laws that require agencies to
prioritize public health and safety and protecting the
environment and instead focus on cost to industry. It also
would make federal agency science much more vulnerable to
judicial review. Lastly, the bill would effectively undermine
Congressionally chartered independent agencies by putting
them under the influence of the Office of the President.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful
presentation and thank the Chair for his indulgence.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I will make my statement brief. As you
know, I believe in a little bit of brevity around here. Let me suggest
that we have talked at length on the content of the bill and the intent
of the bill. Let me suggest that my colleague may have used the wrong
example or analogy because we all know, where there is one mosquito,
there is more. Where there is one, there is more. At this point in
time, this bill says we are going to take care of his mosquitoes. With
all due respect, I ask my colleagues to support the bill, as I believe
it puts the transparency required in rulemaking that will require
agencies to disclose they are asking for comments and who is making the
comment. It is one more step in getting the government accountable to
the people rather than accountable to itself.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1004
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Integrity Act of
2017''.
SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO PENDING
REGULATORY ACTIONS.
(a) Amendment.--Chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 306 the following new
section:
``Sec. 307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory
action
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Agency regulatory action.--The term `agency
regulatory action' means guidance, policy statement,
directive, rule making, or adjudication issued by an
Executive agency.
``(2) Public communication.--The term `public
communication'--
``(A) means any method (including written, oral, or
electronic) of disseminating information to the public,
including an agency statement (written or verbal), blog,
video, audio recording, or other social media message; and
``(B) does not include a notice published in the Federal
Register pursuant to section 553 or any requirement to
publish pursuant to this section.
``(3) Rule making.--The term `rule making' has the meaning
given that term under section 551.
``(b) Information To Be Posted Online.--
``(1) Requirement.--The head of each Executive agency shall
make publicly available in a searchable format in a prominent
location either on the website of the Executive agency or in
the rule making docket on Regulations.gov the following
information:
``(A) Pending agency regulatory action.--A list of each
pending agency regulatory action and with regard to each such
action--
``(i) the date on which the Executive agency first began to
develop or consider the agency regulatory action;
``(ii) the status of the agency regulatory action;
``(iii) an estimate of the date of upon which the agency
regulatory action will be final and in effect; and
``(iv) a brief description of the agency regulatory action.
``(B) Public communication.--For each pending agency
regulatory action, a list of each public communication about
the pending agency regulatory action issued by the Executive
agency and with regard to each such communication--
``(i) the date of the communication;
``(ii) the intended audience of the communication;
``(iii) the method of communication; and
``(iv) a copy of the original communication.
``(2) Period.--The head of each Executive agency shall
publish the information required under paragraph (1)(A) not
later than 24 hours after a public communication relating to
a pending agency regulatory action is issued and shall
maintain the public availability of such information not less
than 5 years after the date on which the pending agency
regulatory action is finalized.
``(c) Requirements for Public Communications.--
``(1) In general.--Any public communication issued by an
Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory
action--
``(A) shall specify whether the Executive agency is
considering alternatives;
``(B) shall specify whether the Executive agency is
accepting or will be accepting comments; and
``(C) shall expressly disclose that the Executive agency is
the source of the information to the intended recipients.
``(2) Restriction.--Any public communication issued by an
Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory
action, other than an impartial communication that requests
comment on or provides information regarding the pending
agency regulatory action, may not--
``(A) directly advocate, in support of or against the
pending agency regulatory action, for the submission of
information to form part of the record of review for the
pending agency regulatory action;
``(B) appeal to the public, or solicit a third party, to
undertake advocacy in support of or against the pending
agency regulatory action; or
``(C) be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda
purposes within the United States unless otherwise authorized
by law.
``(d) Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than January 15 of each year,
the head of an Executive agency that communicated about a
pending agency regulatory action during the previous fiscal
year shall submit to each committee of Congress with
jurisdiction over the activities of the Executive agency a
report indicating--
``(A) the number pending agency regulatory actions the
Executive agency issued public communications about during
that fiscal year;
``(B) the average number of public communications issued by
the Executive agency for each pending agency regulatory
action during that fiscal year;
``(C) the 5 pending agency regulatory actions with the
highest number of public communications issued by the
Executive agency in that fiscal year; and
``(D) a copy of each public communication for the pending
agency regulatory actions identified in subparagraph (C).
``(2) Availability of reports.--The head of an Executive
agency that is required to submit a report under paragraph
(1) shall make the report publicly available in a searchable
format in a prominent location on the website of the
Executive agency.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 306 the
following new item:
``307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory action.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in part A 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 as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 115-21.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph
(and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(2) Propaganda; publicity; advocacy.--The terms
`propaganda', `publicity', and `advocacy' mean information,
statements, or claims (or using such information, statement,
or claim, as applicable) that--
``(A) are not widely accepted in the scientific community;
or
``(B) are beliefs or assertions that are unsupported by
science or empirical data.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair and the managers of the bill, in this
instance Mr. Raskin and his collaborator, the Republican manager as
well. I thank them for their very thoughtful discussion. I also want to
indicate that this regulation does have a perspective of excessiveness
on a matter that can be confined to instructions to the agencies that
have the responsibility of implementing the laws that we pass here in
the United States Congress.
My amendment improves the present underlying bill by making clear
that
[[Page H1475]]
communication of information statements or claims that are generally
accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is
not restricted by this bill.
H.R. 1004 directs each Federal agency to make information regarding
their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a
prominent website. That information would have to include the date a
regulation was considered, its current status, an estimate of when the
regulation will be final, and a brief description of the regulation. In
addition, agencies will be required to track the details of all public
communications about pending regulatory actions.
But it further provides that:
``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers
to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial
communication that requests comment on or provides information
regarding the pending agency regulatory action,'' among other things,
``may not--be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda
purposes within the United States. . . .''
I want to make sure that if an agency is telling the truth, then that
agency is not going to be charged, as was said by Mr. Raskin, using a
sledgehammer, that they can't make those communications. Take, for
example, someone claiming that global warming is a hoax, but, if you
read the facts, you will find out that a landmark 2013 study assessed
4,000 peer-reviewed papers by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an
opinion on the cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the
authors attributed climate change to manmade causes. That may be a
simple statement made by an agency based on science and empirical
study. That should not be prohibited.
The Jackson Lee amendment will protect Federal agency employees who
might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against,
wrongfully terminated or mistreated, or the whole regulation process
imploded for statements made even though the statement is externally
valid, logical, rooted in fact, or supported by empirical data,
although contrary to an administration's political agenda. I want this
to be straight up. I want these agency representatives to do what is
right, so I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules
Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings
for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee
Amendment to H.R. 1004.
The Jackson Lee Amendment improves H.R. 1004 by making clear that
Communication of information, statements or claims that are generally
accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is
not restricted by the bill.
H.R. 1004 directs each federal agency to make information regarding
their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a
prominent website.
That information would have to include the date a regulation was
considered, its current status, an estimate of when the regulation
would be final, and a brief description of the regulation.
In addition, agencies would be required to track the details of all
public communications about pending regulatory actions.
H.R. 1004 further provides that ``any public communication issued by
an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action,
other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or
provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action,
among other things, may not ``be directly or indirectly used for
publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless
otherwise authorized by law.''
Thus, in addition to requiring each federal agency to make
information regarding regulatory action publicly available and
accessible online, H.R. 1004 places restrictions on the type and
quality of communications agencies may make.
This vague phrase--``publicity or propaganda purposes''--creates
substantial uncertainty and confusion as to what public communications
are permissible, and risks discouraging agencies from keeping the
public apprised of the important work they do on its behalf.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will protect federal agency employees who
might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against,
wrongfully terminated, or mistreated for statements made even though
the statement is externally valid, logical, rooted in fact, or
supported by empirical data, although contrary to an administration's
political agenda.
Under the Jackson Lee Amendment, for example, a communication that
human activity is a major contributor to climate change is not
propaganda because it is an assertion supported by an overwhelming
consensus of the scientific community.
On the other hand, a claim that there is `widespread voter fraud' in
presidential elections could be considered propaganda, because there is
no reliable and statistically significant empirical data to support
such a claim.
Federal agencies' ability to engage and inform the public in a
meaningful and transparent way regarding their work on important
science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public is a
public good that we must nurture and protect.
While propaganda may corrupt information or ideas by an interested
party in a tendentious way in order to encourage particular attitudes
and responses, information, supported by facts or empirical evidence,
on the other hand, does not.
The Jackson Lee Amendment safeguards the legitimacy and transparency
of communications issued by federal agencies, ensuring that the
information disseminated to the public is accurate and reliable.
I urge my colleagues to preserve the bedrock principles of empirical
research, scientific method, and free inquiry that are indispensable to
free societies by voting for the Jackson Lee Amendment.
[From cnbc.com, February 17, 2017]
Murray Energy CEO Claims Global Warming Is a Hoax, Says 4,000
Scientists Tell Him So
(By Tom DiChristopher)
Murray Energy Chairman and CEO Robert Murray on Friday
claimed global warming is a hoax and repeated a debunked
claim that the phenomenon cannot exist because the Earth's
surface is cooling.
Murray appeared on CNBC's ``Squawk Box'' to discuss
Republicans' rollback of an Obama-era rule that would have
restricted coal mining near waterways. President Donald Trump
signed the measure on Thursday in front of Murray and a group
of Murray Energy workers.
Murray Energy is the country's largest coal miner. Many of
its mines are in Appalachia, a region that would suffer some
of the biggest impacts of the rule. Murray also successfully
sued to delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which
would regulate planet-warming carbon emissions from power
plants.
Asked about the economic analysis behind President Barack
Obama's energy regulations, Murray said, ``There's no
scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell
me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20
years.''
It was not immediately clear who the 4,000 scientists
Murray referenced are.
Asked for clarification, a spokesperson for Murray Energy
sent links to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change,
which says ``human-caused climate change is not a global
crisis,'' and the Global Warming Petition Project, a list of
science degree holders who don't think humans cause climate
change.
Murray's claim that there is no scientific analysis behind
climate change is not true.
A landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers
by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the
cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors
attributed climate change to manmade causes.
His second claim that Earth is cooling is also false.
Temperatures were the warmest on record last year,
according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. It was the third year in a row global average
temperatures set a record.
``The planet's average surface temperature has risen about
2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late
19th century,' a change driven largely by increased carbon
dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,''
NASA and NOAA said.
Climate change skeptics sometimes point to cool land
temperatures to dispute global warming. Scientists have
repeatedly noted that water covers 70 percent of the Earth's
surface, so it is highly misleading to cast temperatures on
land as a representation of global-scale temperatures.
Land also heats and cools more quickly than the ocean, The
Weather Channel noted while debunking a recent Breitbart News
article that was widely found to have cherry-picked data to
cast doubt on climate change.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Texas
seeking to make this better, but I am going to have to oppose this
amendment. It is confusing, unnecessary, and
[[Page H1476]]
overly restrictive on agencies. This amendment would create a single
definition of three different words: propaganda, publicity, and
advocacy. Those are different words. Under this amendment, publicity,
advocacy, and propaganda would mean making a statement not widely
accepted by the scientific community. Are we going to create a test of
two out of three dentists agree? It is going to be difficult to do. I
mean, it could be anything. Is it propaganda for me to say I love my
wife? I only know a couple of scientists, there is not going to be a
broad, general consensus in the scientific community about that, but it
is certainly not propaganda. It is a statement of my feeling.
Publicity and propaganda and advocacy are different words. They don't
mean the same thing, and they certainly don't have the definition my
friend from Texas is suggesting. Check out the dictionary. You can do
it on your smartphone. These definitions that are proposed in this
amendment are unworkable. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that my good friend
from Texas loves his wife. I would also suggest to him that there might
be a number of individuals who are experts that would be able to
confirm that, certainly those who are around him, and they might be
able to say that that is not propaganda or publicity, and, therefore,
his statement stands.
But when you are talking about thousands upon thousands of executive
agency staff, servants of the United States Government wanting to do
what is right, and you come down with this massive, oppressive document
that says here is what you have to do, but don't do propaganda and
don't do publicity, there should be a determination or a standard that
says if it is based in fact, you have no problem, that is information
that you can disseminate in order to edify those who may be wanting to
comment by edifying the particular regulatory scheme or structure that
you are putting forward for comment.
Why should my friends on the other side be afraid of good, strong
information to make the input valuable so that if I am dealing with a
clean air regulation that I am able to hear from those who are for and
against, but I can provide documentation, scientific documentation
about the quality of air pollution, why this regulatory scheme is
appropriate. I ask my colleagues, again, to support the Jackson Lee
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I come back to the purpose of this
bill: we want our regulatory agencies to be neutral. They propose a
rule, they have done the research, and they have done the science. They
wouldn't be proposing it if they didn't believe that it needed to be
done. Where they crossed the line is using taxpayer money to go out and
promote and advocate for it. The idea behind public comments, the whole
thought behind public input is to get a diversity of ideas, but, if the
solicitations seeking that comment are biased, or if the agency is
advocating it, it potentially suppresses the other side. We want to get
both sides of the matter.
Let's look at the actual definition of propaganda. I googled it while
Ms. Jackson Lee was just speaking. Propaganda is information,
especially of a biased or misleading nature used to promote a
particular cause or point of view. Advocacy is another one that has a
definition. It is public statements for or a recommendation of a
particular cause or policy. So those definitions basically say you are
pushing a point of view. We don't want to limit those.
The definition and the purpose behind this legislation is to make our
agencies fair about seeking comment and fair about listening to those
comments. We don't want the agencies going into this with preconceived
notions and advocating it. We want the public comment to work the way
the public comment is supposed to work. The scientific community,
whether they are for it or against it, can weigh in in those public
comments, and the public and the agency will know what their consensus
is based on the fair comments fairly solicited. So again, I urge
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. How much time is remaining on both sides?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining. The
gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that what
we are suggesting is that propaganda can be confusing. I want truth and
honesty, and I want our agencies to be able to reach out and to help
the American people. Therefore, my amendment says that if by chance
they say something but it has facts or empirical evidence, it is not
propaganda, it is not publicity, they can go forward and protect our
water, they can protect our health, they can protect our air. Why are
we hiding on this floor?
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. It only
makes this bill more refined as to how we can help the American people
pass a regulatory scheme that enhances local communities and cities.
That is why we need the Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the purpose of the
underlying legislation here is to make sure we have a fair process and
the Federal Government isn't pushing a point of view, it is listening
to all sides. This amendment takes that away. For that reason, I urge
opposition.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Farenthold
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 2 printed in part A of House Report 115-21.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer), 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, line 24, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 5, line 2, strike the period at the end and insert ``;
and''.
Page 5, after line 2, insert the following new clause:
``(v) if applicable, a list of agency regulatory actions
issued by the Executive agency, or any other Executive
agency, that duplicate or overlap with the agency regulatory
action.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple transparency measure
that adds a disclosure requirement under the underlying bill.
Understanding which regulations are duplicative or overlapping allows
the public to be better informed as they participate in the rulemaking
process. We want to know what is going on as members of the public. Too
many times agencies develop regulations without consideration or
coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
or, in some cases, even the public. They issue proposed rules that are
unnecessary, duplicative, or overcomplicated.
This simple amendment helps draw the public's attention to potential
areas of concern while the rule is still in the proposed phase of
rulemaking. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my opposition to this
amendment because it is perfectly duplicative, and it does nothing to
cure
[[Page H1477]]
the very serious deficiencies in the underlying bill. Executive Order
13563, which was issued by President Obama, requires each agency to
``periodically review 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.''
Because there is little doubt that this executive order covers the
review and elimination of duplicative and overlapping regulatory
actions, there is no need for the additional reporting requirements
that this amendment would redundantly impose. More importantly, this
amendment simply fails to address the profound flaws in the underlying
bill. It fails to provide the bright lines for what an agency can
communicate to the public safely within the stringent new guidelines.
It fails to eliminate the unnecessarily burdensome and onerous
requirements in the bill that seem to have no purpose but to reduce the
amount of information agencies would be able to release to the public
and invite from the public.
{time} 1000
The amendment fails to eliminate the prohibition against agencies
making public communications that directly advocate for or oppose the
submission of public comments or expert analysis of a pending rule. The
amendment fails to remove the serious impediments this bill places in
the way of agency use of social media platforms. Most importantly, the
amendment does nothing to cure the serious chilling effect that the
bill would have on agency communications and the negative effects that
this imposition would have on the ability of agencies to educate
millions of Americans about the costs and benefits of a particular
regulation and to invite their input into the rulemaking process.
Because the amendment does nothing to improve the flaws of this bill
and is duplicative of work that agencies are already required to do, I
urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague across the aisle
actually makes the case for me. The executive branch already requires
that this work be done by the agencies.
Leaving behind the constitutional authority of this body to direct
that happen in the nature of executive orders that can be changed by
the next executive, this actually codifies a good part of the executive
order that is already in place, so the agencies wouldn't have to do any
work.
What this does add, however, to that executive order and why it is so
important is it adds a transparency requirement. An agency is required
to look to see what regulations are out there that may be duplicative
under the executive order. This requires them to tell us about it. Why
would they want to hide from the American people that they are creating
a duplicative regulation?
This is a simple transparency amendment that improves the quality of
the underlying bill, improves the amount of information accessible to
the public, and holds executive branch agencies accountable to make
sure they are not putting unnecessary and duplicative burdens on the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise only to note the remarkable irony of
the gentleman making an argument for the reduction of duplicative
regulations by adding another duplicative regulation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, we are simply codifying an executive
order here, as the gentleman pointed out, but we are adding one more
thing. We are adding transparency to it so the American people know
what these alphabet soups of government agencies are up to and give us,
as watchdogs in Congress, or private organizations or a member of the
public with internet access the ability to see how the CFR is expanding
and expanding with more and more duplicative Federal rules.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, this redundant and duplicative and, again,
chilling amendment will only add more red tape, divert the time of
agency officials to produce more paperwork that is unnecessary, and
point us right back to the central flaw of the legislation.
My distinguished opponents have mobilized all of one case to
demonstrate the necessity of this legislation, and it was a case which
was properly resolved by the GAO, and everybody agrees to it. So I
understand the urge to get up and say we need more legislation to do
what we have already been able to accomplish under existing law, I
understand that everybody wants to make a point about the righteousness
of legislative change, but sometimes we just don't need another law.
The law works as it was. We don't need another law.
And again, I am just impressed by the irony of saying we need another
law to eliminate excessive and redundant regulation when the current
law already does it. It is almost like a caricature of what we do here
in Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple.
It would require an executive agency to report any new rule or
regulatory action that would duplicate or otherwise overlap with
existing agency rules and regulations.
So much of government's excess is created by unelected officials who
wield enormous influence over our everyday lives.
Last year, Federal agencies issued 18 rules and regulations for every
one law that passed Congress.
That is a grand total of 3,853 regulations in 2016 alone. In 2015,
Federal regulations cost the American economy nearly $1.9 trillion --T,
trillion dollars--in lost growth and productivity.
Think about that for a second. A $1.9 trillion tax, a government
burden on the American people. That means lost jobs, stagnant wages,
and decreasing benefits for workers.
When the House passed the REINS Act in January, I offered an
amendment to require at least 1 rule be overturned for every new rule
finalized by the executive branch.
President Trump recently took that one step further by issuing an
executive order which required at least 2 rules be overturned for every
new rule.
My amendment builds on those initiatives by requiring any agency
issuing a duplicative regulation to indicate as much when making the
online disclosure required by the underlying bill.
The truth is, the federal government is all too often a fountain of
unnecessary regulations.
And while some may debate the merits of any given regulation, few
would agree the federal government should issue identical iterations of
the same regulation multiple times over.
Mr. Speaker, it is past time we stop bureaucratic abuse and shift the
balance of power from government back to the people, where it belongs.
That can start today by passing the Regulatory Integrity Act and
putting our government on a path to reduce the amount of red tape that
our businesses and the American people deal with every day.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan for his
hard work on this commonsense legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. 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 Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 115-21.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 8, after line 12, insert the following new subsection:
(c) Applicability.--Section 307 of title 5, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), does not apply to any
communication that is protected under the First Amendment to
the Constitution.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, with all good intentions of the
underlying bill, the Regulatory Integrity Act
[[Page H1478]]
of 2017, which has a very distinguished name, I am really concerned,
and my colleague should be concerned, of the chilling effect of this
particular legislation. Let me tell you what the problem is.
My good friend from Texas Mr. Farenthold, Congresswoman Jackson Lee,
and Professor Raskin will not be bending over the shoulder of some
hardworking public servant for the Federal Government trying to
interpret what this new law means. Can I speak? Can I send information
out? What a chilling effect. What a First Amendment violation this
legislation might entail.
Take, for example, Chairman Pai of the FCC. He decided to publish the
full text of proposals and regulations that the public would otherwise
never see until after they had been finalized and approved. Suppose he
was then charged with a violation of this bill? Chilling effect,
undermining the public's ability to even understand what a very
important agency such as the FCC is doing.
My amendment simply states that nothing in this bill shall be
interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For those of us who
love the Constitution, that is the First Amendment, and it is a simple,
simple statement. Your freedom of speech is protected because it
enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, makes
decisions, and communicates those decisions to the government.
Let me recite a 1927 case from Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v.
California. There is a joy in reading it because he wrote and said:
``Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means
indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''
The Framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice Brandeis:
``that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for
its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and
imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds
hate.''
The question is: Some worker who is responsible for this, what will
they think?
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that
indicates the First Amendment will not be chilled.
Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules
Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings
for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain this Jackson Lee
Amendment to H.R. 1004.
The Jackson Lee Amendment is simple and straightforward.
It simply states that ``nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to
prohibit any communication that is protected under the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.''
The amendment is necessary because not only does H.R. 1004 direct
that certain information be made publicly available by agencies
regarding their regulatory actions, the legislation also imposes
restrictions on the type and quality of communications that can be made
by agencies and agency personnel.
Mr. Chair, it is useful to explain briefly why the First Amendment's
protection of speech is central to the effective functioning of the
American political system.
Freedom of speech and a vibrant and robust democracy are inextricably
intertwined.
Freedom of speech enables people to obtain information from a
diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions
to the government.
The First Amendment also provides American people with a
``marketplace of ideas.''
Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth,
freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions.
In Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that
``freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means
indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''
Free speech facilitates democratic governance because it is only
through talking that we encourage consensus and form a collective will.
Over the long run, free speech improves our public decision-making
because just as we Americans generally believe in free markets in
economic matters, we also generally believe in free markets when it
comes to ideas, and this includes governmental affairs.
Freedom of speech strengthens public confidence in the American
governmental system of checks and balances.
Speech is thus a means of empowering people, through which they
learn, grow, and share; correct errors; and remedy violations of the
public trust.
Mr. Chair, the framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice
Brandeis again in Whitney v. California:
that order cannot be secured merely through fear of
punishment for its infraction;
that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and
imagination;
that fear breeds repression;
that repression breeds hate;
that hate menaces stable government[.]
Free societies like the United States accept that openness fosters
resiliency and that free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.
Not only does freedom of speech serve the ends of democracy, it is
also an indelible part of human personality and human dignity.
In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 case Procunier
v. Martinez:
The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity
but also those of the human spirit--a spirit that demands
self-expression.
Freedom of speech is intimately connected to the human desire to
think, imagine, create, wonder, inquire, and believe.
While freedom of speech is not unlimited, the American tradition is
to view such limits with caution and skepticism and to embrace freedom
of speech as a transcendent constitutional value.
In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Justice Douglas reminded
us that:
effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people
are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored
flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously
subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination.
In other words, Mr. Chair, freedom of speech is fundamental to the
American identity and psyche.
And that is why I have proposed the Jackson Lee Amendment to ensure
that nothing in H.R. 1004 shall be interpreted to prohibit any
communication that is protected under the precious First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary and
confusing. As I am sure my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
knows, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The First Amendment applies to everybody in this country. We couldn't
write a law that infringes upon the First Amendment and have it
withstand scrutiny by the Supreme Court or under the Constitution, and
I certainly wouldn't support a law that did this.
The underlying legislation is designed to stop public agencies from
using your taxpayer dollars and my taxpayer dollars for promoting one
side of an issue. It is not designed to chill any Federal employees of
First Amendment rights.
In fact, the Supreme Court, in 1994, in Waters v. Churchill, held
that public employees do have a right to free speech. We are not going
to be leaning over people's necks seeing what they are putting on their
personal Twitter accounts, but we are going to say that, if you are a
government agency spending taxpayer dollars to promote a point of view
on something before your agency, that is a no-no. That is what this
underlying legislation does.
Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment is simply unnecessary because we can't
suppress the First Amendment rights even if we want to. And we do not--
I say do not--ever want to violate the Constitution and interfere with
people's First Amendment rights. And, listen, I agree with the
underlying intent of my colleague's amendment. Simply, we can't do it.
Unfortunately, this amendment is not only unnecessary, it could be
harmful. If we say First Amendment protections apply in this law, are
we going to have to go out and in every law we pass, put in something
that says the First Amendment applies? Come on. We already know the
First Amendment applies because the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land.
So it creates unnecessary confusion that could ultimately harm
people's
[[Page H1479]]
First Amendment rights. Can you see the lawsuits? Well, Congress didn't
say in there it protected my First Amendment right. So we would have to
go and rewrite every law on the books.
The Constitution is there and it works. It is an unnecessary
amendment. So I hope my clarification that the First Amendment applies
assuages the concerns of the gentlewoman from Texas and she withdraws
the amendment. If she doesn't, however, I am going to have to oppose it
as unnecessary and potentially confusing to the entire body of law of
this country.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me say this.
Mr. Chair, first of all, before I yield to the gentleman from the
great State of Maryland, the reason why we need my amendment is because
this deals with speech. This regulatory bill deals with speech, what
you can say and what you cannot say.
So this is not a reflection that we need this in every legislative
initiative. I would love for it to be there. But this is a bill that
deals with what our agencies can say. And if the Chairman of the FCC
put out all of these proposals specifically so that the public could
see, just think if this bill unclarified what the protection of the
First Amendment reiterated, his speech would be chilled.
I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, a regime of fear has descended on the Federal
workforce, and I have got 88,000 Federal employees in my district.
If they insist on this legislation--unnecessary, redundant,
confusing, and chilling--at the very least, we must pass the
gentlewoman's amendment to say that it does not trench on the First
Amendment rights of our citizens who are simply exercising in a
viewpoint-neutral, in a content-neutral way the determination of the
agencies to solicit public input.
You say you support on your side the input of the public. You say you
support the intent of the amendment. Let's accept the amendment, and
let's all embrace the First Amendment together.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would just like to point out that Commissioner
Pai's release of that information would not be prohibited under this
bill. It is not advocacy. It is releasing facts. So it would not be
prohibited.
Again, the First Amendment already applies to every law that we make
in this body and every law we have made. The Constitution trumps what
we do here.
So, with that, I continue to argue that this amendment is unnecessary
and potentially confusing, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, Mr. Chair, can the Chair tell us the time
remaining.
The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me indicate that the gentleman just
argued my point. Clarity is what we need. My amendment provides
clarity.
Again, what does this bill do? This bill tells Federal employees
about their speech: what level of speech, containing speech, how much
speech, what they can say, what is propaganda, what is publicity.
Therefore, I think it is important to avoid the chilling effect on
public servants who are doing the task on behalf of the American
people.
Being the American people's defendant, I believe that we should, in
fact, have this language. In Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Douglas
reminded us that an effective self-government cannot succeed unless the
people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow
of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique,
rebuttal, and reexamination. That is the protection of the First
Amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I think the utmost clarity is in the First
Amendment. I am going to read it here.
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
{time} 1015
That applies to everything we do, every law we make. This amendment
is unnecessary, and I urge opposition.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
Let me reemphasize: Clarity in the First Amendment cannot be a bad
thing. This bill kills speech. Let's clarify that that speech is
protected by the First Amendment to not chill the hard work of our
hardworking Federal employees trying to provide for the safety and
security of the American people.
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, at the risk of sounding repetitious, the
First Amendment applies to all we do in this body. This amendment is
unnecessary.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 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 A of House Report
115-21 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Farenthold of Texas.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 234, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 122]
AYES--180
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
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
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
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
[[Page H1480]]
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
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
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
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
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
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
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
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)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--15
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Chu, Judy
Gallego
Hudson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
McGovern
Nadler
Rush
Scott, David
Taylor
Wittman
Young (AK)
{time} 1038
Messrs. ABRAHAM, POSEY, THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida, ROTHFUS,
LUETKEMEYER, and WESTERMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 122.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Farenthold
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Farenthold) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263,
noes 145, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 123]
AYES--263
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bera
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
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
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kihuen
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
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
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--145
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
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
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Krishnamoorthi
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
[[Page H1481]]
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Bass
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brooks (AL)
Comstock
Fitzpatrick
Hudson
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Keating
Marchant
McGovern
Nadler
Poe (TX)
Rice (NY)
Rogers (KY)
Rush
Scott, David
Taylor
Waters, Maxine
Wittman
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1043
Mr. HIMES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 123.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
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
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
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
Hollingsworth
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
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, 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
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
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)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
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)
Dunn
Ellison
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
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--8
Bass
Hudson
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Nadler
Rush
Taylor
Wittman
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1050
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall
vote No. 124, on H.R. 1004, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no''
when I should have voted ``yes.''
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). There being no further
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, 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.
1004) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the
publication of information relating to pending agency regulatory
actions, and for other purposes, 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.
The question is on the amendment.
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
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Jayapal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1004 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendments:
Page 6, line 13, after ``Executive agency'' insert the
following: ``or the President of the United States''.
[[Page H1482]]
Page 6, line 17, after ``regulatory action,'' insert the
following: ``or that refers to a business in which the
President has an equity interest,''.
Page 7, line 1, after ``regulatory action'' insert the
following: ``or business''.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this amendment restricts the President from
making public statements to promote his own business interests in the
same way that the bill restricts statements by agencies on pending
rules. If we intend to hold agencies accountable for their statements,
we should certainly be willing to hold the President of the United
States to those same standards. Donald Trump's enormous web of business
interests and conflicts of interest make it clear that it is necessary
to explicitly expand this restriction to the President.
It is deeply disturbing, Mr. Speaker, that the President has refused
to release his tax returns or create a blind trust for the proceeds of
his assets. Numerous U.S. Presidents have placed their financial
holdings into a blind trust that is managed by a trustee without any
input from the President. This allows for the President to minimize any
conflicts of interest and any suggestion that the Presidency of the
United States is being used for his own personal profits.
This President, however, has avoided those calls for him to sell his
assets or place them into a blind trust. Instead, documents obtained
through public records requests show that President Trump has moved the
assets over, just in name, to his son and a longtime employee, but that
Trump himself, the President of the United States, is the sole
beneficiary of all of those trusts.
In other words, there is no wall erected between his businesses and
his Presidency, and anyone who wants to buy influence can simply do so
openly. His entire Presidency can be seen as a promotion of his
business interests and be used by domestic and foreign governments to
curry favor and produce benefit to his personal empire.
Trump Tower in D.C. is one example of this. The building, which is
leased to him by the Federal Government, stipulates in its lease that
``any elected official of the Government of the United States'' may not
derive any benefit from that agreement. At 12:01 p.m. on Inauguration
Day, Trump was in violation of this clause. That lease should be
terminated effective immediately.
Just last week, the Kuwaiti Embassy held its annual event to
celebrate the country's national day at the President's D.C. hotel. The
event was initially scheduled to take place at the Four Seasons, and,
in fact, a ``save the date'' went out with the Four Seasons location.
But Kuwait canceled that reservation just a few days after the
election, and moved the event to the President's hotel after that
happened.
These are not isolated instances. They constitute a pattern of
conflicts of interest every time a foreign government holds a reception
or rents a room at a Trump property, a problem so important to this
country that it was put into the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution
of the United States of America.
The American people should also be deeply concerned about conflicts
of interest at the President's Mar-a-Lago resort. On January 1, 2017,
just 2 months after the election of Donald Trump, the exclusive resort
doubled its membership initiation fee from $100,000 to $200,000. When
Trump took Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe there, it created even
more free publicity for the resort as several social media posts were
made throughout the weekend.
Conducting government affairs in public settings not only has serious
national security concerns, but indicates that anyone who wants to be a
member of the club will have access to the President of the United
States, and the President will personally profit off of their
membership.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to know what the entire
web of conflicts of interest are, but we have yet to get this
information because we have not received--we have yet to get any
information from this President, his tax returns, or any of the
documents that help us to ensure that he is complying with the
Constitution of the United States of America, that document that he
swore to uphold and protect, so that we can make sure that he is not
using the highest office of this land to profit.
{time} 1100
The American people have the right to demand that this President put
their interests first rather than his own business interests.
I urge all of my colleagues to pass this motion to recommitment and
demand that we uphold our Constitution, protect this democracy and the
duty of this President to work not for the business interests, but for
we the people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
March 2, 2017, on page H1482, the following appeared: Mr.
FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and claim
time in opposition. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. FARENTHOLD.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order. The SPEAKER pro
tempore. The point of order is withdrawn. Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr.
Speaker, I claim the time in opposition. The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, as a great supporter of transparency,
this bill is designed to promote transparency in executive branch
agencies.
Unfortunately, I think the motion to recommit would actually be
violative of the Constitution. The President and the executive branch
agencies we are seeking to regulate under this law are creations of
Congress administered by the executive branch.
The Presidency is created by the Constitution, and it is my belief
that it would be unconstitutional to pass this motion to recommit. For
that reason alone, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
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
[[Page H1483]]
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
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--232
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
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
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)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--8
Crist
Hudson
Jordan
Nadler
Pelosi
Rush
Taylor
Wittman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1107
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 109 through 113, 118, 119,
122, 124, and 125, I was unable to cast my vote in person due to an
unexpected illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 176, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
AYES--246
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Gutierrez
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
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
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Panetta
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
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)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--176
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
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
Courtney
Crowley
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
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'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Hudson
Jordan
Nadler
Pelosi
Rush
Taylor
Wittman
[[Page H1484]]
{time} 1114
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 114 through 117, 120, 121,
123, and 126, I was unable to cast my vote in person due to an
unexpected illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.''
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on Thursday, March 2, 2017.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 122,
``Yea'' on rollcall No. 123, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 124, ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 125 and ``Yea'' on rollcall 126.
____________________