[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6836-H6840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY IN AGENCY RULEMAKING ACT

  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 922, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 357) to require the head of an agency to issue and sign 
any rule issued by that agency, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lesko). Pursuant to House Resolution 
922, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 357

       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 ``Ensuring Accountability in 
     Agency Rulemaking Act''.

     SEC. 2. RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Approval Required.--
       (1) Rules promulgated by senate confirmed appointee.--
     Except as provided in paragraph (3), any rule promulgated 
     under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
     issued and signed by an individual appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (2) Initiation of rulemaking and regulatory agenda.--Except 
     as provided in paragraph (3), any rule initiated under 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
     initiated by a senior appointee.
       (3) Exception.--Paragraph (1) or (2) does not apply if the 
     head of an agency--
       (A) determines, on a nondelegable basis, that compliance 
     with the relevant paragraph would impede public safety or 
     security;
       (B) submits to the Administrator a notification disclosing 
     the reasons for the exemption; and
       (C) publishes such notification, consistent with public 
     safety, security, and privacy interests, in the Federal 
     Register.
       (b) Oversight.--
       (1) Agency compliance.--The head of each agency shall 
     ensure that the issuance of any agency rule promulgated under 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code, adheres to the 
     requirements of this section.
       (2) OIRA guidance and compliance.--The Administrator shall 
     provide guidance on the implementation of and shall monitor 
     agency compliance with this section.
       (c) Rules of Construction.--This section may not be 
     construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to 
     budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

[[Page H6837]]

       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
       (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, and does 
     not include any rule of agency organization, procedure, or 
     practice that does not substantially affect the rights or 
     obligations of non-agency parties.
       (4) Senior appointee.--The term ``senior appointee'' means 
     an individual appointed by the President, or performing the 
     functions and duties of an office that requires appointment 
     by the President, or a non-career member of the Senior 
     Executive Service (or equivalent agency system).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 357.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 357, the Ensuring 
Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act. This bill will increase the 
accountability of policymakers in the executive branch. It is a matter 
of good governance that will benefit the American people.
  This bill should not be controversial.
  Madam Speaker, 3,168 is the number of final rules enacted by Federal 
agencies in 2022. During that same year, Congress passed just 247 laws. 
This statistic helps to illustrate just how much Federal law comes from 
unelected officials in the administrative state and not from Congress.
  Moreover, under current law, some of the bureaucrats who initiate, 
enact, and enforce regulations lack direct political accountability. 
For example, according to one analysis, between 2001 and 2017, more 
than 70 percent of the rules issued by the Department of Health and 
Human Services were issued by career employees. That number is more 
than 98 percent for the Food and Drug Administration over the same 
period. Ninety-eight percent of the rules issued by the FDA are issued 
by career employees and not by elected officials or by officials who 
were confirmed by the Senate. Nonetheless, they impose binding legal 
obligations on Americans.
  This is not representative government working as it should. President 
Trump had a solution for reining in the rulemaking power of career 
bureaucrats. Executive order 13979 generally required notice-and-
comment rules to be initiated and signed by executive branch officials 
who were politically accountable, not career civil servants. President 
Biden, however, revoked this policy within weeks of taking office.
  H.R. 357, the Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act, would 
remedy this mistake. The bill generally requires that only politically 
accountable officials and not career bureaucrats initiate and issue 
regulations. By codifying this limitation on agency rulemaking 
authority, H.R. 357 helps to restore the accountability of the 
administrative state.
  The bill will increase political accountability for Federal 
policymaking and restore the right of the American people to choose who 
governs them.
  Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the so-called Ensuring Accountability in Agency 
Rulemaking Act is a misguided proposal that will ensure that the 
process of confirming nominees to administrative agencies is even more 
politicized and onerous than it is today, while also blocking the 
regular work of our executive branch agencies.
  This bill would require any agency rule promulgated under the 
Administrative Procedure Act to be issued and signed by someone who was 
appointed to their position by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate. This requirement, on its face, may seem innocuous, but it 
provides Congress with a weapon it can wield to prevent ongoing work of 
agencies by blocking a President's nominations and leaving an agency 
without an eligible person to issue regulations.
  In the past few decades, the process for Senate confirmation has 
lengthened considerably. Although we have passed measures like the 
Federal Vacancies Reform Act to ease this burden, there are still over 
1,000 executive branch roles that would require Senate confirmation, 
and far too many go unfilled for years at a time as it is.
  By requiring that rulemaking must be initiated and signed by a 
Senate-confirmed leader, this bill will make the confirmation process 
even more politicized, and it could give individual Senators even more 
incentive to block nominations for the sake of a partisan goal.
  This would add unnecessary delay in the creation, promulgation, and 
implementation of critical new rules, rules that serve to protect the 
public's health, safety, and security.
  The bill's sloppy drafting also adds ambiguity to the process. For 
example, the bill requires that any rule must be ``initiated'' by a 
senior appointee, but what action qualifies as ``initiating'' a rule?
  Is it when it is first raised in a meeting at the agency?
  Is it when staff starts drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking?
  Is it when a proposed rule is put out for notice and comment?
  Is it something in between?
  We do not know.
  Determining the answers to these questions will only lead to years of 
litigation and yet more delay.
  To the extent that the bill's sponsors are concerned about 
transparency and accountability in the regulatory process, Congress 
already has many ways to exercise its authority over the administrative 
process. For example, Congress can disapprove regulations under the 
Congressional Review Act, a power this majority has not been shy in 
using. It can limit agencies' rulemaking authority, it can restrict the 
use of funds to implement regulations, and it can conduct oversight of 
agency activity, among other powers.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is just the latest effort by 
Republicans to undermine the regulatory process, a process that 
protects our health and safety each and every day. Regulations ensure 
that we have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and safe food 
to eat. They ensure that children's toys and cribs are safe, that 
medications are safe and effective, and that the planes, trains, and 
automobiles we depend on for transportation will keep us safe. They 
ensure that consumers are protected from fraud and discrimination, that 
workers are treated fairly, that veterans are fairly compensated for 
their service, and so much more.
  Nevertheless, Republicans want to stop this process in its tracks and 
put our health and safety at risk.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York talked about the Senate 
having to waste its time confirming individuals to positions so that 
they can address these regulations, but the Senate needs to do their 
job. They need to advise and consent on the nominees from the 
administration.
  The Senate has a means by which to address whatever challenges the 
gentleman raises, and the President also has the means by which to 
address these concerns through the process of recess appointments. Now 
that is not a very commonly used solution anymore, but the President 
does have that power. So there are ways to address the gentleman's 
concerns.
  In addition, there is an exception to these requirements in the bill. 
If the head of an agency determines that compliance would impede public 
safety or security, all that needs to happen is for them to submit a 
notification disclosing the reasons for the exemption

[[Page H6838]]

to the OIRA administrator in publishing the notification in the Federal 
Register.

                              {time}  1445

  Finally, I would state that the $14,684 figure is the amount per U.S. 
household each year that agency rules cost American families. That 
$14,000 is an amount that not a lot of families have right now thanks 
to the inflation that has been caused by the massive spending of the 
last Congress and the Biden administration.
  To my recollection, 17 percent over the course of the Biden 
administration has been the cumulative inflation rate over the last 3 
years.
  This amount of money has hit especially hard, and we would do well to 
address that and keep that in mind as we seek to reduce the number of 
regulations that these bureaucracies are promulgating each and every 
day. We need to try and think of the American people first as we seek 
to legislate on their behalf here in the House of Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia says that 
recess appointees could help solve this problem, but a recess appointee 
is not confirmed by the Senate and, therefore, under the terms of this 
bill could not approve any regulation. The recess appointee question is 
irrelevant and doesn't mitigate the harm of this bill in any way.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and 
his good friend as well for yielding, and I appreciate their intent, 
but let me be very clear: What we have here is a complete collapse of a 
system that is attempting to save lives.
  Our administrative process, our administrative APA, these individuals 
are grounded with the expertise of the particular agencies that they 
are in.
  Under this legislation, what we would have is a complete politicizing 
of the Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed appointees because 
that would be another monkey wrench, if you will, into why they should 
not be confirmed.
  In addition, this will encourage gamesmanship. If you think the 
confirmation process is slow, wait till this bill becomes law.
  Congress already has, and the Republicans have used it quite often, 
the Congressional Review Act so that we can determine whether or not 
rulemaking or a particular issue is one that is not only reviewed but 
should be changed.
  In the rulemaking process with experts that we oversee, because we 
have congressional hearings, we are dealing with clean air, clean 
water, safe toys, safe cars, and safe workplaces, but, more 
importantly, as I was sitting in a meeting today, we are dealing with a 
new initiative dealing with taking lead out of water.
  Do we want to stop the process of removing lead from the water that 
our children drink because we implement this particular procedure that 
will stop our Presidentially-appointed officials from doing their job, 
from helping us to ensure that our children are safe?
  This is a slowdown. This is where lives are not saved. I would argue 
to my friends that this legislation, unfortunately, should not move 
forward because there is too much good work going on and the work that 
is going on will be thwarted, will be stopped.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the AFSCME, 
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who 
oppose this particular legislation, along with the administration 
policy statement as well as a number of other agencies.


                                                       AFSCME,

                                                December 11, 2023.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Reprssentative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I write to express our strong opposition 
     to the Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act (H.R. 
     357), because it would deliberately create unnecessary and 
     confusing bureaucratic hurdles for agency officials as they 
     work to promulgate essential rules for public health, 
     environment and worker protections.
       H.R. 357 would create uncertainty within agencies and would 
     stifle effective government functioning. While H.R. 357 
     purports to improve agency accountability, the proposal 
     actively undermines the constitutional authority of agencies 
     to delegate the routine task of signing a rulemaking to 
     subordinates as an efficiency measure. Senior agency 
     appointees already ratify the signing of the rulemaking after 
     the fact to comply with this clause.
       In addition to attempting to solve a non-issue, H.R. 357 
     generates more confusion in the rulemaking process as the 
     bill's requirements do not directly define what action 
     qualifies as ``initiating'' a rule. As agencies are impacted 
     by this uncertainty, significant steps in the rulemaking 
     process could be delayed without clarity, and as a result, 
     even regulations that streamline compliance for regulated 
     entities could be stifled.
       Congress should seek ways to support and fully staff 
     agencies that are responsible for designing rules that 
     protect our workers, public health and environmental safety. 
     We oppose H.R. 357 and urge you to vote against this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Edwin S. Jayne,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 357--Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act--Rep. Cline, 
                         R-VA and 19 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 357, a bill that 
     would require that notice-and-comment rulemaking be initiated 
     by a ``senior appointee'' and be issued and signed by a 
     Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee. This bill would 
     result in unnecessary delays in the regulatory process when 
     Senate-confirmed positions are temporarily filled by senior 
     officials while nominees await confirmation. It would add 
     unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that would encumber the 
     rulemaking process without providing any additional benefits, 
     as there are procedures already in place that provide for 
     engagement, oversight, and accountability by Executive Branch 
     agency leadership, such as review of significant rules by the 
     interagency under Executive Order 12866. H.R. 357 would also 
     limit the flexibility of Senate-confirmed officials to 
     delegate signature authority to experienced subordinates who 
     have the requisite authority and experience to oversee 
     regulatory development.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 357, he would 
     veto it.
                                  ____

                                                December 11, 2023.
       Dear Representative, The undersigned organizations and 
     individuals write in opposition to the misleadingly-named 
     ``Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act'', H.R. 
     357. This bill would codify Executive Order 13979, entitled 
     ``Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
     issued by former President Donald Trump at the end of his 
     term and repealed by President Joe Biden. This legislation 
     would decrease the accountability of industry to the public. 
     It would do so by adding intentional ambiguity that would 
     lead to considerable delay in the creation, promulgation, and 
     implementation of critical new public health and safety 
     safeguards, financial reforms, and worker protections.
       For example, H.R. 357 provides that ``any rule promulgated 
     under section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, shall be 
     issued and signed by an individual appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.'' As you are aware, under the Constitution's 
     appointments clause, agency rulemakings are authorized by 
     ``principal'' officers who are Senate confirmed, and in 
     practice, this often occurs through necessary delegation. No 
     agency, however, would ever issue a rule without 
     authorization from a relevant agency leader. Rather than 
     ensuring public protections and industry accountability in 
     and through agency rulemaking, it would create confusion, 
     ambiguity, and uncertainty and pointless delays.
       As government openness and accountability advocates, we 
     strongly urge you to oppose the Ensuring Accountability in 
     Agency Rulemaking Act.
           Sincerely,
     Government Information Watch,
     National Center for Health Research,
     Project On Government Oversight,
     Earthjustice,
     Government Accountability Project,
     National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE),
     Steve Lenkart, CEO, Government Executives International,
     Liz Borkowski, MPH.
                                  ____

                                            Coalition for Sensible


                                                   Safeguards,

                                                     May 23, 2023.
       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, and the undersigned allied 
     organizations strongly oppose the Ensuring Accountability in 
     Agency Rulemaking Act, H.R. 357.
       The Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act would 
     codify Executive Order 13979, entitled ``Ensuring Democratic

[[Page H6839]]

     Accountability in Agency Rulemaking,'' which was issued by 
     former President Donald Trump in his very last days in office 
     and was repealed by President Joe Biden. It will add 
     unnecessary ambiguity and considerable delay in the creation, 
     promulgation, and implementation of critical new public 
     health and safety safeguards, financial reforms, and worker 
     protections--making industry even less accountable to the 
     public. These consequences are particularly objectionable 
     because the bill purports to ``solve'' a problem that does 
     not actually exist. Rather than advance good government 
     reform, this bill demonizes our public protection agencies 
     and promotes a harmful anti-regulatory narrative.
       The Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act 
     provides that ``any rule promulgated under section 553 of 
     Title 5, United States Code, shall be issued and signed by an 
     individual appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate.'' Yet, under the Constitution's 
     appointments clause, agency rulemakings are authorized by 
     ``principal'' officers who are Senate confirmed, and in 
     practice, this often occurs through necessary delegation. 
     Currently, senior agency appointees sometimes delegate the 
     routine task of signing a rulemaking to subordinates as an 
     efficiency measure. Senior agency appointees ratify the 
     signing of the rulemaking after the fact to comply with this 
     clause.
       Given the expense and legal consequences involved, no 
     agency would ever issue a rule without authorization from a 
     relevant agency leader. At best, this bill would serve to 
     create needless bureaucratic hurdles for agency officials, 
     rather than correct any real problem of public 
     accountability.
       The bill further requires that all rules ``shall be 
     initiated by a senior appointee'' but does not define what 
     ``initiated'' means. Since the Administrative Procedure Act 
     does not define this term, this will create uncertainty that 
     could thwart rulemaking.
       For example, what action qualifies as ``initiating'' a rule 
     under this bill? Is it when a rule is proposed? Is it when it 
     is assigned a Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)? Would 
     the granting of a citizen petition for rulemaking satisfy 
     this requirement? The bill is silent on this important 
     detail. Yet, these are significant steps in the rulemaking 
     process, and none of these wou]d take place without approval 
     of the Senate-confirmed official.
       In the worst case, the uncertainty due to this provision 
     could stifle the effective functioning of agencies. Drawing 
     on their unique experience and expertise, rank-and-file staff 
     at agencies often provide the inspiration for an idea that 
     eventually becomes a rule. Indeed, senior agency officials 
     rely on career staff for these innovations. This bill risks 
     creating a disincentive for career staff at agencies to 
     propose innovative solutions to the problems the agency was 
     created to address. Significantly, many of these solutions 
     could even be the kind that achieve regulatory objectives at 
     lower compliance costs for regulated businesses.
       Congress should be searching for ways to ensure that 
     federal agencies are able to enforce laws designed to protect 
     our safety, air quality, water, food, financial security, and 
     much more, not putting up roadblocks to sensible safeguards 
     that protect the American people.
       For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose the 
     Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rachel Weintraub,
                                               Executive Director.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this legislation is opposed by the 
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. I would like to dwell on this 
question of water and lead coming out of water since many of us were 
here during the Flint incidents, and we also know what goes on in our 
own congressional districts.
  Let's not stop children from living. Let's not stop the lifesaving 
regulatory process. Let's oppose H.R. 357.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 357, The Ensuring 
Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act.
  H.R. 357 would require any agency rule promulgated under the 
Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment process to be 
``initiated'' and signed by someone who was appointed to their position 
by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with limited exceptions 
for national security and public safety.
  Simply put, this anti-regulatory bill is an attempt to codify bad 
federal policy issued during the Trump Administration that was later 
repealed by President Biden, and it would add unnecessary ambiguity and 
delay in the rule making process from beginning to end.
  While my Republican colleagues will tell you that this is just about 
transparency and accountability, it is not.
  This is about shutting down the regulatory process.
  By requiring that any rulemaking be initiated and signed by a 
presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed official, this bill could 
grind the regulatory process to a halt during long appointment periods 
or presidential transitions.
  Rulemaking could be delayed (or even prevented altogether) by the 
already substantially politicized Senate confirmation process, 
especially during the transition between Administrations and for 
agencies that experience frequent turnover or have longstanding 
vacancies among their senior leadership.
  If you think the confirmation process is slow and contentious now, 
wait until this bill becomes law.
  The party opposing the President will have every incentive to block a 
nomination and prevent an agency from having an eligible head in place 
who can issue regulations.
  Like the Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA) and the 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act--that 
nearly all House Democrats opposed earlier this Congress--this is a 
patently transparent effort to effectively halt Executive agencies from 
performing their Congressionally mandated duties to serve the American 
people.
  This proposal is a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
  While H.R. 357 purports to improve agency accountability, the 
proposal actively undermines the constitutional authority of agencies 
to delegate the routine task of signing a rulemaking to subordinates as 
an efficiency measure.
  Senior agency appointees already ratify the signing of the rulemaking 
after the fact to comply with this clause.
  And Congress also already plays a significant role in placing and 
removing restrictions on agency rules by conducting oversight and 
restricting how funds can be used and passing legislation to limit 
agency discretion.
  As demonstrated time and time again in the House this year, Congress 
can use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn rules it 
disapproves of.
  For instance, my Republican colleagues have already tried to use the 
CRA to repeal reasonable restrictions on deadly weapons, jeopardize 
affordable student loan repayment and make it harder for women- and 
minority-owned businesses to access funds to grow their businesses.
  While most can agree improvements can be made to the regulatory 
process, measures that make it harder for agencies to make new rules 
cuts against the interest of all who reside in the United States. 
Because most importantly, regulations are necessary to save our lives.
  Regulations are critical to ensuring the safety and soundness of 
virtually every facet of our lives, including clean air, clean water, 
safe toys, safe cars, and safe workplaces.
  We should reject any effort that would prevent agencies from issuing 
these life-saving regulations.
  Yet rather than ensuring public protections and industry 
accountability in and through agency rulemaking, this bill would create 
confusion, ambiguity, uncertainty, and pointless delays.
  The bill would only ensure delay and prevent necessary public 
protections from being promulgated in the process causing, and 
avoidable harm and risk to the public.
  If enacted, this bill would give extreme legislators another 
opportunity to obstruct federal policymaking by blocking the 
confirmation of agency officials in the Senate, putting critical 
government functions from civil rights enforcement and financial 
regulation to protecting consumers and the environment in jeopardy.
  It is also important to highlight that the Coalition for Sensible 
Safeguards, consisting of over 160 labor, consumer, and environmental 
organizations are strongly opposed to this bill.
  Additionally, if the President were presented with H.R. 357, he would 
veto it.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to H.R. 
357, The Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act.
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
  I want to point out that when she talks about water, we are all 
concerned about safe water, and that would qualify as an exemption 
under this bill if the head of the agency determined that compliance 
would impede public safety or security. They would only need to submit 
that notification and publish it in the Record.
  I say that this bill does actually consider that circumstance. I also 
state that the letter the gentlewoman put into the Record is coming 
from an association of government employees who are the very 
bureaucrats having their powers removed by this bill. It makes sense 
that those who are being removed from the status quo would oppose the 
bill. It makes sense that those whose powers are being taken away to 
promulgate these regulations and impose these costs on American 
businesses and families would oppose this bill. I would be surprised if 
they didn't oppose the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6840]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let me make two points. The gentleman from 
Virginia points out that paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply if the head of 
an agency determines on a nondelegable basis that compliance with the 
relevant paragraph would impede public safety or security, but there is 
nothing in the bill to define public safety or security. It doesn't 
help at all.
  I would also point out that the last President, not the current one, 
the last one, Mr. Trump, had a lot of acting agency heads. In fact, he 
has stated that he would like in another term to have a lot more acting 
agency heads so he doesn't need Senate confirmation.
  That would mean that few, if any, people would have the ability to 
okay safety and security rules to keep our people safe and our water 
clean, our air safe, et cetera.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).
  Mr. MRVAN. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Nadler for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 357. As a Member of 
the legislative branch, I take very seriously our responsibility to 
provide oversight of the executive branch. We must always look to 
utilize the tools that we have available to us, including through the 
appropriations process, to ensure accountability and provide the 
appropriate scope and direction to our Federal agencies.
  I also believe that elections matter, and that we in the legislative 
branch should do our utmost to find common ground and advance policies 
and programs that promote the best interests of our communities.
  Unfortunately, I believe that this measure goes too far to 
deliberately hinder Federal agencies from advancing their priorities. 
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. 
In addition to exceptions for rules that impact public safety and 
national security, my amendment would also provide exceptions for rules 
related to veteran health benefits.
  As the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigation, I believe we must continue to do all we 
can to work together and advance initiatives that ensure our veterans 
receive the care and benefits that they have earned.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MRVAN. Madam Speaker, I thank, again, the ranking member for the 
time.
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the gentleman and 
agree we are seeking to find common ground, even though I would oppose 
the motion to recommit. I would state that when the ranking member of 
the committee mentioned that the rules have to be promulgated by the 
senior appointee who has to be confirmed by the Senate, the initiation 
of the regulation need only be done by the senior appointee regardless 
as to whether they have been approved by the Senate. It is only before 
the actual rule would be prevented does the nominee have to be 
confirmed by the Senate. The process can begin by a senior appointee 
who has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, which would address some 
of the concerns about holding up nominees in the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this legislation is just the latest in a 
long line of Republican bills meant to undermine and even block agency 
rulemaking altogether.
  This bill would not only erect another hurdle to the creation of 
critical rules that protect our air, water, land, and livelihood, but 
it would also require years of litigation to determine what the vague 
terms of the bill mean. We should reject any effort that would prevent 
agencies from issuing lifesaving regulations.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 357, 
the Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act. As stated, this 
bill requires that only politically accountable officials, not career 
bureaucrats, initiate and issue regulations, the cost of which is 
hurting families across this country even as it seeks to help them 
through regulations.
  The regulations often are meant to address health and safety 
concerns. Those would be given an exemption, but those other 
regulations that put costs on families, put costs on small businesses 
would be curbed unless they are signed off on by a senior official who 
has been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
  This will increase political accountability for Federal policymaking 
and restore the rights of American people to choose exactly who governs 
them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 922, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. MRVAN. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Mrvan of Indiana moves to recommit the bill H.R. 357 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Mrvan is as follows:

       Mr. Mrvan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 357 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 4, insert after line 6 the following:
       (4) Additional exception.--Paragraph (1) or (2) does not 
     apply to any rule to provide benefits or health services to 
     veterans under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  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.
  Mr. MRVAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________