[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.
____________________