[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 598-648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017


                             general leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Allen). Pursuant to House Resolution 33 
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. 5.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1350


                     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. 5) to reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and 
formulate new regulations and guidance documents, to clarify the nature 
of judicial review of agency interpretations, to ensure complete 
analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Bost 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 Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a new day in America. For 8 years, the Obama 
administration has brought us one thing in response to the Nation's 
need for recovery from hard times--failure.
  Bold, innovative measures to unleash American freedom, opportunity, 
and resourcefulness could have brought prosperity's return after the 
Great Recession, just as under Ronald Reagan following his era's 
recession.
  But the Obama administration responded differently, with measure 
after overreaching measure, through regulation, taxes, and spending. It 
was consumed by the folly of trying to force transformation from the 
American people through command and control from Washington. Everywhere 
it went, it sought to choose the winners and losers.
  When Washington tries to choose the winners and losers, we all lose. 
And lose we have. We have a national debt of $20 trillion thanks to the 
outgoing administration's blowout spending. We have an economy that for 
8 years has failed to produce enough good, new, full-time jobs to 
sustain growth and restore dignity to the unemployed. We have 92 
million Americans outside the workforce, a level not seen since the 
Carter years, and nearly $2 trillion of American wealth is commandeered 
each year to be spent as Washington bureaucrats see fit, through 
runaway regulation.
  But it is a new day in America. An incoming administration promises a 
new approach to make America great again. Central to that approach is 
regulatory reform. The Obama administration abused regulation to force 
its will on the American people. The assembling Trump administration 
promises to wipe out abusive regulation, freeing Americans to innovate 
and prosper once more. Today's legislation will give this new 
administration the tools.
  The heart of today's bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act, title 
I, restores to the people the true right to be heard by Washington's 
regulators. It commands Washington bureaucrats to listen to the facts 
and ideas offered by the people and to follow them when they are better 
than the bureaucracy's own. It calls on regulatory agencies to achieve 
the benefits Congress has called on them through statutes to achieve. 
But it gives the people full opportunities to offer fresh alternatives 
for doing so and to vet with the agencies the facts and ideas that work 
and those that don't.
  After the public has fully contributed its say, agencies must choose 
the lowest cost alternative proven to work, achieving the needed 
benefits but rejecting unneeded costs. That leaves resources free to 
generate the benefits, create the jobs, and yield the higher wages only 
the private sector, through hard work and ingenuity, can achieve.
  The other titles of the bill strongly buttress this reform.
  Title II, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, wipes out 
judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes and 
regulations and restores to our system of checks and balances the rule 
Justice Marshall declared in Marbury v. Madison that ``it is 
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say 
what the law is''--not the bureaucracy. When title II is law, our 
courts will no more be rubber stamps for runaway regulatory 
interpretations that burst the bounds of what Congress truly intended 
through statutes.
  Title III, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements 
Act, provides teeth to existing law written to prompt regulatory 
agencies to tailor flexibility for small businesses into their rules. 
Small businesses have fewer resources to comply with Washington's 
mandates. They need flexibility to survive. The terms of existing law 
for too long have been ignored by Washington bureaucrats. Title III 
assures the law will no longer be ignored, resulting in freedom and 
flexibility for America's small businesses, which create the lion's 
share of new jobs in this country and are pillars of communities across 
this land.
  Title IV prevents one of the most egregious of bureaucrats' 
regulatory abuses: the promulgation of new rules that impose over a 
billion dollars in annual compliance costs, which must then be complied 
with even while meritorious litigation challenging their issuance 
proceeds in court. Title IV, the REVIEW Act, eliminates this abuse, 
forcing agencies to stay their billion-dollar rules administratively if 
they are timely challenged in court.
  And in titles V and VI of the bill, the ALERT Act and the Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, this legislation delivers 
much-needed, greater transparency for the public about what new 
regulations agencies are developing and proposing

[[Page 599]]

so they can better prepare to comment on what is proposed, shape what 
is promulgated, and comply with final rules.
  With the help of these reforms, we can truly make America more 
competitive again, put Americans back to work, and free America's 
entrepreneurs to innovate and launch more exciting new products and 
services again.
  I thank my colleagues, Small Business Committee Chairman Chabot, 
Subcommittee Chairman Marino, Representative Ratcliffe, and 
Representative Luetkemeyer, who have joined me in contributing titles 
to this legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
       Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 5, the 
     Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. As you know, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary received an original referral and 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary 
     referral when the bill was introduced on January 3, 2017. I 
     recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives in an 
     expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform will forego action on the 
     bill.
       The Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I 
     request your support for the appointment of conferees from 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any 
     House-Senate conference convened on this or related 
     legislation.
       Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during 
     floor consideration to memorialize our understanding.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from 
     further consideration of H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act,'' so that the bill may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor.
       I agree that your foregoing further action on this measure 
     does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of 
     your committee or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     on this bill or similar legislation in the future. I would 
     support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate 
     conference on this legislation.
       I will seek to place our letters on H.R. 5 into the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and 
     look forward to continuing to work together as this measure 
     moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Goodlatte
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Small Business,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 
     5, the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.'' The 
     legislation falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Small Business pursuant to Rule X, c1.1(q) of the Rules of 
     the House.
       In the interest of permitting the Committee on the 
     Judiciary to proceed expeditiously to consideration of H.R. 5 
     on the House floor, I agree that the Committee on Small 
     Business be discharged from further consideration of the 
     bill. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on Small Business 
     does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its 
     Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to 
     name members of the Committee on Small Business to any House-
     Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     and would ask that a copy our exchange of letters be included 
     in the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
     spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and 
     others between our respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Steve Chabot,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
     Hon. Steve Chabot,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business.
       Dear Chairman Chabot: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from 
     further consideration of H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act,'' so that the bill may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor.
       I agree that your foregoing further action on this measure 
     does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of 
     your committee or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     on this bill or similar legislation in the future. I would 
     support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate 
     conference on this legislation.
       I will seek to place our letters on H.R. 5 into the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and 
     look forward to continuing to work together as this measure 
     moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition, of course, to H.R. 5, the so-called Regulatory 
Accountability Act.
  Under the guise of improving the regulatory process, H.R. 5 will, in 
truth, undermine that process and jeopardize the ability of government 
agencies to safeguard public health and safety, the environment, 
workplace safety, and consumer financial protections.
  It is not a pleasant picture. The ways in which this legislation 
accomplishes this result are almost too numerous to list here, but, of 
course, I will mention a few.
  For example, title I of the bill would impose more than 70 new 
analytical requirements that will add years to the rulemaking process.
  Is that what we want to do? I don't think so.
  Worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate 
the ability of regulated entities--such as well-funded corporate 
interests--to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose. 
And it would function as a ``super-mandate,'' overriding critical laws 
that Congress specifically intended to prohibit agencies from 
considering costs when American lives are at stake.
  Additionally, the bill creates numerous procedural hurdles in the 
rulemaking process, further endangering American lives through years of 
delay and increasing the likelihood of regulatory capture.

                              {time}  1400

  For example, H.R. 5 dramatically expands the use of formal 
rulemaking, a time- and resource-intensive process, requiring formal, 
trial-like hearings for certain rules. Formal rulemaking has long been 
roundly rejected for good cause as being excessively costly and ill-
suited for complex policy issues.
  The administrative section of the American Bar Association noted that 
``these provisions run directly contrary to a virtual consensus in the 
administrative law community that the Administrative Procedure Act 
formal rulemaking procedure is obsolete.''
  I am also concerned that H.R. 5 would impose an arbitrary, one-size-
fits-all, 6-month delay on virtually every new rule. Specifically, 
title V of the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming effective 
until the information required by the bill has been available online 
for 6 months with only limited exception.
  Clearly, H.R. 5 fails to take into account a vast array of time-
sensitive rules ranging from the mundane, such as the frequent United 
States Coast Guard bridge closings regulations, to those that protect 
public health and safety, such as forthcoming updates to the Lead and 
Copper Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the lead 
in public drinking water.
  Finally, title II of H.R. 5 would eliminate judicial deference to 
agencies and require Federal courts to review all agency rulemakings 
and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis. The unfortunate 
result of this requirement is that the bill would empower a

[[Page 600]]

generalist court to override the determinations of agency experts, 
regardless of the judge's technical knowledge and understanding of the 
underlying subject matter.
  By eliminating any deference to agencies, H.R. 5 would force agencies 
to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations, which 
would further delay the finalization of critical lifesaving regulatory 
protections.
  The Supreme Court has recognized that Federal courts simply lack the 
subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, 
and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the 
bench. It is ironic that those who have long decried judicial activism 
now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency 
rulemaking.
  These are only a few of the many serious concerns presented by H.R. 
5, and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this 
dangerous legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                                                       AFL-CIO

                                            Legislative Alert,

                                 Washington, DC, January 10, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing 
     to express our strong opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2017. This sweeping bill, which 
     packages six anti-regulatory measures passed by the House in 
     the last Congress, would upend 40 years of labor, health, 
     safety and environmental laws, threaten new needed 
     protections leaving workers and the public in danger. The 
     AFL-CIO urges you to oppose this harmful legislation.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) is drafted as an 
     amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but it 
     goes far beyond establishing procedures for rulemaking. The 
     RAA acts as a ``super mandate'' overriding the requirements 
     of landmark legislation such as the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act and Mine Safety and Health Act. The bill would 
     require agencies to adopt the least costly rule, instead of 
     the most protective rule as is now required by the OSH Act 
     and MSH Act. It would make protecting workers and the public 
     secondary to limiting costs and impacts on businesses and 
     corporations.
       The RAA will not improve the regulatory process; it will 
     cripple it. The bill adds dozens of new analytical and 
     procedural requirements to the rulemaking process, adding 
     years to an already slow process. The development of major 
     workplace safety rules already takes 8--10 years or more, 
     even for rules where there is broad agreement between 
     employers and unions on the measures that are needed to 
     improve protections. OSHA's silica standard to protect 
     workers from deadly silica dust took nearly 19 years and the 
     beryllium standard 15 years. The RAA will further delay 
     needed rules and cost workers their lives.
       The RAA substitutes formal rulemaking for the current 
     procedures for public participation for high impact rules and 
     other major rules upon request. These formal rulemaking 
     procedures will make it more difficult for workers and 
     members of the public to participate, and give greater access 
     and influence to business groups that have the resources to 
     hire lawyers and lobbyists to participate in this complex 
     process. For agencies that already provide for public 
     hearings, such as OSHA and MSHA, the bill would substitute 
     formal rulemaking for the development of all new rules, 
     overriding the effective public participation processes 
     conducted by these agencies.
       H.R. 5 would subject all agencies--including independent 
     agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
     National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau (CFPB) to these new analytical and 
     procedural requirements. It would be much more difficult for 
     agencies to develop and issue new financial reform rules and 
     consumer protection rules required under recently enacted 
     legislation.
       This radical legislation doesn't just apply to regulations; 
     it would also require agencies to analyze the costs and 
     benefits of major guidance documents, even though these 
     documents are non-binding and have no legal force. Guidance 
     documents are an important tool for agencies to disseminate 
     information on significant issues and hazards quickly in 
     order to protect the public and workers. For example, in 
     response to the Ebola virus threat, the Centers for Disease 
     Control (CDC) issued critical guidance documents in order to 
     prevent the spread of disease, including recommendations for 
     infection control and protections for healthcare workers and 
     emergency responders. Similar guidance was issued was issued 
     to prevent transmission of the Zika virus. Under the RAA's 
     provisions, CDC would be required to assess the costs and 
     benefits of these major guidance documents, making it 
     virtually impossible to provide information and 
     recommendations in a timely manner.
       H.R. 5 also includes a grab bag of other harmful anti-
     regulatory measures that thwart, weaken and undermine 
     protections. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act 
     abolishes judicial deference to agencies' statutory 
     interpretations in rulemaking requiring a court to decide all 
     relevant questions of law de novo, allowing courts to 
     substitute their own policy judgements for the agencies' 
     expert policy determinations. The Small Business Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act (SBRFIA) imposes numerous 
     unnecessary new analytical and procedural requirements on all 
     agencies. It gives the Chief Counsel of the Small Business 
     Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, which in practice 
     operates largely as a mouthpiece for large business 
     interests, new broad powers to second guess and challenge 
     agency rules. The Require Evaluation before Implementing 
     Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act) would automatically stay 
     the implementation of any rule with an estimated annual cost 
     of $1 billion that has been challenged, precluding courts 
     from making this decision, and delaying protections. Other 
     titles add even more unnecessary requirements to the 
     rulemaking process.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act would gut the nation's 
     safety, health and environmental laws, stripping away 
     protections from workers and the public. It would tilt the 
     regulatory process solidly in favor of business groups and 
     others who want to stop regulations and make it virtually 
     impossible for the government to issue needed safeguards. The 
     AFL-CIO strongly opposes H.R. 5 and urges you to vote against 
     this dangerous legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____



                                             Consumer Reports,

                                                 January 10, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Consumer Reports and its policy and 
     mobilization arm, Consumers Union, urge you to vote no on 
     H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. This 
     dangerous proposal would do severe damage to protections 
     consumers depend on for health, safety, and honest treatment.
       Congress has charged federal agencies with protecting the 
     public from threats such as tainted food, hazardous products, 
     dirty air and water, and predatory financial schemes. It 
     established these agencies, such as the Food and Drug 
     Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau, so that public protections could be 
     overseen by professional civil servants with specific 
     technical and scientific expertise. In developing 
     regulations, agencies must act in accordance with the statute 
     and with established rulemaking procedures that require 
     transparency and full opportunity for public input, including 
     input from the industry that will be subject to the 
     regulation.
       We agree that the regulatory process can certainly be 
     improved. We stand ready to support constructive efforts to 
     reduce delays and costs while preserving important 
     protections.
       However, rather than streamlining and improving the 
     regulatory process, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 
     would make current problems even worse. Under H.R. 5, 
     agencies would be required to undertake numerous costly and 
     unnecessary additional analyses for each rulemaking, which 
     could grind proposed rules to a halt while wasting agencies' 
     resources. Collectively, these measures would create 
     significant regulatory and legal uncertainty for businesses, 
     increase costs to taxpayers and businesses alike, and prevent 
     the executive branch from keeping regulations up to date with 
     the rapidly changing modern economy.
       One of the most damaging effects of H.R. 5 is that it 
     would, with only limited exceptions, require federal agencies 
     to identify and adopt the ``least costly'' alternative of a 
     rule it is considering. Currently, landmark laws like the 
     Clean Air Act, Consumer Product Safety Act, and Securities 
     Exchange Act require implementing agencies to put top 
     priority on the public interest. H.R. 5 would reverse this 
     priority by requiring agencies to value the bottom-line 
     profits of the regulated industry over their mission to 
     protect consumers and a fair, well-functioning marketplace.
       H.R. 5 also includes several other damaging measures that 
     have not been included previously as part of the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act. These measures would add unjustifiable 
     costs and uncertainty to the rulemaking process, and greatly 
     impair regulatory agencies' work.
       Contrary to its name, the ``Separation of Powers 
     Restoration Act'' (Title II of H.R. 5) would disrupt the 
     carefully developed constitutional balance between the 
     legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Courts giving 
     appropriate deference to reasonable agency interpretations of 
     their own statutes, as reflected in Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. 
     NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), is a well-settled approach that 
     promotes sound and efficient agency enforcement, with 
     effective judicial review. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts 
     retain full judicial power to review agency legal 
     interpretations, but do not simply substitute their own 
     judgment for an agency's.

[[Page 601]]

     Chevron recognizes that agencies accumulate uniquely valuable 
     expertise in the laws they administer, which makes deference 
     from reviewing courts--which do not have that expertise--
     appropriate.
       Overturning this approach would lead to disaster. It would 
     severely hamper effective regulatory agency enforcement of 
     critical protections on which consumers depend. As the 
     Supreme Court stated in City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 
     133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013): ``Thirteen Courts of Appeals 
     applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test would render 
     the binding effect of agency rules unpredictable and destroy 
     the whole stabilizing purpose of Chevron. The excessive 
     agency power that the dissent fears would be replaced by 
     chaos.'' Such a move also would needlessly force the courts 
     to repeatedly second-guess agency decisions that the courts 
     have already concluded the agency is in the best position to 
     make.
       The REVIEW Act and the ALERT Act (Titles IV and V of H.R. 
     5) would cause additional needless and damaging delays to 
     public protections. The REVIEW Act--which would block ``high-
     impact'' rules until every industry legal challenge has run 
     its full course--would tie up agencies in court indefinitely, 
     potentially making it impossible to address pressing national 
     problems. The ALERT Act would subject most new rules to a 
     delay of at least six months, and require agencies to waste 
     resources complying with repetitive reporting requirements.
       Like the bill's proponents, we believe regulations should 
     be smart, clear, and cost-effective. However, H.R. 5 does not 
     accomplish this objective. Instead of improving the 
     regulatory process, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 
     would make it dramatically slower, more costly to the nation, 
     and far less effective at protecting health, safety, and 
     other essential consumer priorities.
       We strongly urge you to stand up for critical public 
     protections and vote no on H.R. 5.
           Sincerely,
     Laura MacCleery,
       Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization, Consumer 
     Reports.
     George P. Slover,
       Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
     William C. Wallace,
       Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
                                  ____



                               Consumer Federation of America,

                                                 January 10, 2017.
     Re Oppose legislation on House Floor to undermine crucial 
         consumer protections: H.R. 5.

       Dear Representative: The Regulatory Accountability Act of 
     2017 (H.R. 5) would handcuff all federal agencies in their 
     efforts to protect consumers. H.R. 5 is a vastly expanded 
     version of previous versions of the Regulatory Accountability 
     Act (RAA). H.R. 5 not only significantly and problematically 
     amends the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which has 
     guided federal agencies for many decades but also now 
     incorporates five additional bills that thwart the regulatory 
     process: the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility 
     Improvement Act; the Require Evaluation before Implementing 
     Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act); the All Economic 
     Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT Act); the Separation 
     of Powers Restoration Act; and the Providing Accountability 
     Through Transparency Act. These titles make an already 
     damaging bill even worse.
       Specifically, the RAA would require all agencies, 
     regardless of their statutorily mandated missions, to adopt 
     the least costly rule, without consideration of the impact on 
     public health and safety or the impact on our financial 
     marketplace. As such, the RAA would override important 
     bipartisan laws that have been in effect for years, as well 
     as more recently enacted laws to protect consumers from 
     unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe food and 
     unsafe consumer products.
       For example, the RAA would likely have prevented the 
     Federal Reserve from adopting popular credit card rules under 
     the Truth in Lending Act in 2008 that prevented card 
     companies from unjustifiably increasing interest rates and 
     fees on consumers. This is because these far-reaching changes 
     to abusive practices that were widespread in the marketplace 
     were not the ``least costly'' options that were considered, 
     although they were arguably the most cost-effective.
       The RAA would have a chilling impact on the continued 
     promulgation of important consumer protections. Had it been 
     in effect, for example, the RAA would have severely hampered 
     the implementation of essential and long-standing food safety 
     regulations, such as those requiring companies to prevent 
     contamination of meat and poultry products with deadly 
     foodborne pathogens. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention has credited the implementation of regulations 
     prohibiting contamination of ground beef with E. coli O157:H7 
     as one of the factors contributing to the recent success in 
     reducing E. coli illnesses among U.S. consumers.' But such 
     benefits are impossible to quantify before a rule is enacted.
       Further, had the RAA been in effect the necessary child 
     safety protections required by the Consumer Product Safety 
     Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) may have never been 
     implemented. For example, between 2007 and 2011 the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled 11 million 
     dangerous cribs. These recalls fol owed 3,584 reports of crib 
     incidents, which resulted in 1,703 injuries and 153 deaths. 
     As a direct result of the CPSIA, CPSC promulgated an 
     effective mandatory crib standard that requires stronger 
     mattress supports, more durable hardware, rigorous safety 
     testing, and stopped the manufacture and sale of drop-side 
     cribs. If the RAA were implemented, such a life saving rule 
     could have been delayed for years or never promulgated at 
     all, at countless human and financial cost.
       The RAA also would add dozens of additional substantive and 
     procedural analyses, as well as judicial review to the 
     rulemaking process for every major rule. It would: expand the 
     kind of rules that must go through a formal rulemaking 
     process; require agencies to determine ``indirect costs'' 
     without defining the term; require an impossible-to-conduct 
     estimation of a rule's impact on jobs, economic growth, and 
     innovation while ignoring public health and safety benefits; 
     and expand the powers of the White House's Office of 
     Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs to throw up numerous rulemaking roadblocks, including 
     requiring them to establish guidelines for conducting cost-
     benefit analysis. This would further delay or prevent the 
     promulgation of much needed consumer protections.
       The new titles of H.R. 5 also add numerous roadblocks to 
     the promulgation of necessary consumer protections. The 
     Separation of Powers Restoration Act (Title II) eliminates 
     judicial deference that agencies are granted when rules are 
     challenged in court. This allows judicial activism and 
     political considerations to trump agency expertise. The Small 
     Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvement Act (Title III) 
     would increase regulatory delays and create new opportunities 
     for court challenge to regulations. The Require Evaluation 
     before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act) 
     (Title IV) would encourage frivolous legal challenges and 
     infuse the regulatory process with years of delay by 
     requiring courts reviewing ``high-impact'' regulations to 
     automatically ``stay'' or block the enforcement of such 
     regulations until all litigation is resolved. The All 
     Economic Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT Act) (Title 
     V) would also blatantly and purposefully lengthen the 
     regulatory process by requiring a six-month delay in the 
     development of regulations.
       We urge you to oppose this significant threat to consumer 
     protection, a fair marketplace, health, and safety posed by 
     H.R. 5. If adopted, this proposal would waste federal 
     resources, minimize the ability of federal agencies to do 
     their jobs, grind the regulatory process to a halt, and 
     infuse the regulatory process with roadblocks preventing the 
     protection of the public and ultimately putting American 
     consumers at risk.
       We strongly urge you to oppose this harmful bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rachel Weintraub,
     Legislative Director and General Counsel.
                                  ____



                            Coalition for Sensible Safeguards,

                                                 January 10, 2017.
     Re Floor vote of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 
         2017.

       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 opposes H. R. 5, the 
     Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 (RAA), which will be 
     voted on this week.
       H.R. 5 is a compilation of radical and harmful legislative 
     proposals that will permanently cripple the government's 
     ability to protect the public by rigging the regulatory 
     process against new regulatory safeguards in favor of 
     deregulation or regulatory inaction. The bill is just as 
     dangerous and extreme as the REINS Act (H.R. 26) and the 
     Midnight Rules Relief Act (H.R. 21).
       All of these bills are designed to make it as difficult as 
     possible for federal agencies to implement existing or new 
     laws that ensure our access to clean air and water, safe 
     workplaces, untainted food and drugs, safe toys and consumer 
     goods, and a stable financial system free of Wall Street 
     recklessness. On the other hand, deregulatory actions that 
     repeal existing rules are exempt by virtue of the 
     legislation's myopic focus on ``costs'' to corporate special 
     interests instead of ``benefits'' to the public. In short, 
     the legislation will create a double standard in our 
     regulatory system that systematically favors deregulation 
     over new public protections and ``fast-tracks'' the repeal of 
     rules while paralyzing the creation of new ones.
       The new version of the RAA, introduced in this Congress, 
     takes the previous RAA legislation and folds in several 
     destructive pieces of other so-called regulatory reform bills 
     including: the misleadingly named Small Business Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act, the Require Evaluation before 
     Implementing Executive Wishlists Act (REVIEW Act), the All 
     Economic Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT Act), the 
     Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the Providing 
     Accountability Through Transparency Act. These pieces of 
     other bills seek

[[Page 602]]

     to worsen an already destructive bill and add several more 
     corrosive layers intending to dismantle our public 
     protections.
       The current rulemaking process is already plagued with 
     lengthy delays, undue influence by regulated industries, and 
     convoluted court challenges. If passed, Title I of this bill 
     would make each of these problems substantially worse and 
     would undermine our public protections and jeopardize public 
     health by threatening the safeguards that ensure our access 
     to clean air and water, safe workplaces, untainted food and 
     drugs, and safe toys and consumer goods.
       Rather than enhancing protections, it does the exact 
     opposite. It adds 80 new analytical requirements to the 
     Administrative Procedure Act and requires federal agencies to 
     conduct estimates of all the ``indirect'' costs and benefits 
     of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without 
     providing any definition of what constitutes, or more 
     importantly, does not constitute an indirect cost. The 
     legislation would significantly increase the demands on 
     already constrained agency resources to produce the analyses 
     and findings that would be required to finalize any new rule. 
     Thus, the RAA is designed to further obstruct and delay 
     rulemaking rather than improve the regulatory process.
       This legislation creates even more hoops for ``major'' or 
     ``high-impact'' rules i.e., rules that provide society with 
     the largest health and safety benefits. It would allow any 
     interested person to petition the agency to hold a public 
     hearing on any ``genuinely disputed'' scientific or factual 
     conclusions underlying the proposed rule. This provision 
     would give regulated industries multiple opportunities to 
     challenge agency data and science and thus further stretch 
     out the already lengthy rulemaking process.
       H.R. 5 would also create a restrictive mandate of a ``one-
     size-fits-all'' directive that every federal agency adopt the 
     ``least costly'' alternative. This is a profound change and 
     effectively creates a ``super-mandate'' for all major 
     regulatory actions of executive and independent agencies 
     which overrides twenty-five existing statutes, including the 
     Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
     Act. These laws prioritize public health, safety, and 
     economic security, not the cost concerns of regulated 
     entities.
       Title II of H.R. 5 is the Separation of Powers Restoration 
     Act piece which seeks to destroy the Chevron deference 
     principal. It would remove the judicial deference that 
     agencies are granted when their regulations are challenged in 
     court. This would be a radical change that upends one of the 
     fundamental principles in administrative law, namely that 
     courts should not second-guess scientific and technical 
     expertise at federal agencies. Overly intrusive judicial 
     review is one of the primary reasons for regulatory delay and 
     paralysis and this legislation would make those problems much 
     worse.
       The misleadingly named Small Business Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act (Title III) is a Trojan horse 
     that would expand the reach and scope of regulatory review 
     panels, increase unnecessary regulatory delays, increase 
     undue influence by regulated industries and encourage 
     convoluted court challenges all in the name of helping 
     ``small business,'' but so expansively applied that mostly 
     big businesses would benefit. Because the bill mandates that 
     these panels look at 'indirect costs,' which are defined very 
     broadly, it could be applied to virtually any agency action 
     to develop public protections.
       The REVIEW Act (Title IV) would make our system of 
     regulatory safeguards weaker by requiring courts reviewing 
     ``high-impact'' regulations to automatically ``stay'' or 
     block the enforcement of such regulations until all 
     litigation is resolved, a process that takes many years to 
     complete. It would add several years of delay to an already 
     glacially slow rulemaking process, invite more rather than 
     less litigation, and rob the American people of many critical 
     upgrades to science-based public protections, especially 
     those that ensure clean air and water, safe food and consumer 
     products, safe workplaces, and a stable, prosperous economy.
       The ALERT Act (Title V) is designed to impede the 
     government's ability to implement critical new public health 
     and safety protections by adding a six-month delay. This 
     amounts to a six-month regulatory moratorium, even after the 
     often lengthy period required for developing and finalizing 
     these regulations. Such delays could extend well beyond that 
     initial six-month period should the OIRA Administrator fail 
     to post the required information in a timely manner.
       This new version of the RAA would override and threaten 
     decades of public protections. The innocuous-sounding act is, 
     in reality, the biggest threat to public health standards, 
     workplace safety rules, environmental safeguards, and 
     financial reform regulations to appear in decades. It acts as 
     a ``super-mandate,'' rewriting the requirements of landmark 
     legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act and distorting their protective focus 
     to instead prioritize compliance costs.
       We strongly urge opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2017.
           Sincerely,

                                              Robert Weissman,

                                  President, Public Citizen Chair,
     Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
                                  ____

                                                           AFSCME,


                                       We Make America Happen,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million working 
     and retired members of the American Federation of State, 
     County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge 
     you to oppose the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 (H.R. 
     5). This reckless legislation would severely undermine the 
     nation's ability to ensure that workers are safe on the job 
     and in the marketplace. If enacted, H.R. 5 would effectively 
     end the federal government's ability to enact new protections 
     on behalf of the American people. Instead, the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act looks to protect businesses from people as 
     a platform for policymaking.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act would upset the 
     constitutional balance between branches of the government and 
     impose new burdens on an already cumbersome regulatory 
     process. In rulemaking, federal agencies must adhere to the 
     requirements of the statue being implemented, and are often 
     given a roadmap from Congress. From there, federal agencies 
     must also follow the robust procedural and analytical 
     requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the 
     Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 
     the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review 
     Act,
       The Regulatory Accountability Act adds more than 70 steps 
     to the regulatory process while giving corporate interests 
     more opportunities to influence and weaken standards. It 
     would require unnecessary Advance Notices for a large number 
     of rules, and impose unnecessary new evidentiary standards as 
     a condition of rulemaking. It would subject the regulatory 
     process to unneeded rounds of litigation.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 will prevent 
     agencies from growing and addressing new issues for 
     environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer 
     financial security protections. We urge you to oppose this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) who is the chairman of the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte. I 
also want to thank Congressman Ratcliffe of Texas.
  Included in H.R. 5 is the All Economic Regulations Are Transparent 
Act, or the ALERT Act. I want to highlight that, in the past two 
Congresses, the ALERT Act was reported favorably out of the Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The ALERT Act itself is simply a transparency bill. It requires the 
administration to provide meaningful information about upcoming 
regulations online before those are actually issued. Early online 
disclosure will create the need for transparency so the public can see 
what is on the horizon.
  Each month, Federal agencies will be required to list all regulations 
expected to be proposed or finalized within the following year. For 
each regulation on the list, the issuing agency is required to provide 
basic information to the public about that regulation. This includes 
the objectives of the regulation, the legal basis for the regulation, 
and where it stands in the rulemaking process.
  If the agency expects to finalize the regulation within the following 
year, the agency is also required to provide information about the 
impact of the regulation. This includes estimates on the costs, the 
completion date, and the economic effects of the regulation, including 
the net effect on jobs--something that doesn't happen now but seems to 
be just common sense.
  In this 21st century, Federal agencies should have to show their work 
online so the public can engage. That is why I like what Mr. Ratcliffe 
has championed since he has become a Member of this Congress. Let's 
also understand and remember that, by the administration's own 
estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over the last 10 years have 
imposed the cost of at least $100 billion annually on the American 
taxpayers.
  Again, I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte's work and commitment on this 
issue. I want to thank, again, our good friend, Congressman John 
Ratcliffe,

[[Page 603]]

for his work on this. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has 
looked upon this very favorably. We are very supportive of the overall 
bill, as well as this specific provision.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is a very active former member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 weeks, the majority has considered 
three bills on the House floor designed to undermine the ability of the 
executive branch to implement essential economic and public health 
protections for the people we have the honor to represent: the so-
called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which could retroactively disallow 
rules issued as far back as June of last year; the REINS Act, which 
requires a majority vote of both Houses of Congress before any major 
rule can go into effect; and today's Regulatory Accountability Act, 
which is an 82-page omnibus bill which would effectively tie the 
executive branch into so much red tape that environmental, workplace, 
and consumer protections might never see the light of day.
  By enacting these statutes, Congress would impair the constitutional 
duty of the executive branch to ``take care that laws be faithfully 
executed'' and replace them with a series of layers that can be applied 
by deep-pocketed special interests, including one provision that 
prevents some rules from going into effect that may affect public 
safety if somebody files a lawsuit.
  The question is: Who loses when these playing fields are tilted this 
way? Well, just a couple within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Education and Labor, 4.2 million working people would lose. That is the 
number of people who would be eligible for overtime pay as a result of 
the responsible actions taken by the Obama administration. They would 
lose the benefit of overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours a 
week. Working families and seniors could lose their retirement savings.
  Last year, the Obama administration released a fiduciary rule that 
ensures that retirement savings are protected from financial advisers 
who may prioritize fees over services. Without the rule, working 
families and seniors could lose billions of dollars every year in 
retirement savings by being unnecessarily charged by unscrupulous 
financial advisers.
  Students in low-income school districts could lose. Without the 
Department of Education's new supplement-not-supplant rule, these 
students would lose critical resources, and those resources would be 
redirected to wealthier districts.
  So let's be clear. The bill before us is not on the side of children, 
workers, and retirees. Instead, the bill throws sand in the gears of 
the regulatory process by adding more layers to the process, rigging it 
in favor of powerful corporate interests, and encouraging frivolous 
lawsuits. That is not what Congress should be focusing on. Instead, we 
should be building on the progress that has been achieved over the last 
8 years. We should be considering legislation that increases wages, 
improves the lives of working families, increases access to high 
quality child care and early childhood education, supports quality 
public schools in every neighborhood, makes colleges more affordable, 
helps American families balance work and family life, and empowers 
workers to organize and collectively bargain.
  That has been the focus of my Democratic colleagues on the Education 
and the Workforce Committee, and that focus will remain in the years 
ahead. So I urge the majority to partner with us to protect and promote 
the rights of working people and students by defeating this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy) who is the distinguished majority leader of 
the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the chairman for his work. I would also like to highlight a few 
Members whose work is inside this bill. First, Congressman Marino, 
Congressman Ratcliffe, Chairman Chabot, and Congressman Luetkemeyer 
have all done a tremendous amount of work to make this bill here today, 
and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a grave problem in our Federal Government. It 
undermines our Constitution, it contradicts the will of the people, and 
it is a deadweight on our economy destroying American jobs and costing 
billions of dollars per year in paperwork and lost opportunities. I am 
talking about the duplicative and unforgiving Federal bureaucratic 
state.
  But before I discuss the dangers that an overzealous bureaucracy 
poses to our country, I want to be clear that the House has already 
made great progress. We are engaged in a two-step approach: first, to 
change the structure of Washington that deprives the people of their 
power; and second, to repeal specific harmful regulations. We will get 
started on the second part early next month.
  We have already passed two bills last week to change Washington's 
structure, the Midnight Rules Relief Act and the REINS Act. Today, we 
will pass the third, the Regulatory Accountability Act. This requires 
agencies to choose the least costly option available to do what they 
are charged to do and prohibits large rules from going into effect 
while they are still being challenged in court. It also ends something 
called Chevron deference where courts automatically bend to the 
agency's interpretation of the rules. Under the current standard, that 
means the agency will win almost every single time in the courtroom and 
the people lose.
  These three bills are about more than stopping bad regulations from 
being made. They are about changing the process in Washington that 
systemically prioritizes government over the common good instead of 
making government serve the common good.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation is based on a principle that power 
ultimately comes from the people. Elections are the great foundation of 
our Republic, and, as we saw so clearly this last November, through 
them, the people can make their voices heard. But something has 
changed. Some of the most significant decisions in Washington, those 
that most affect the lives of the public, are made by those who don't 
stand for election.
  What happens when the EPA imposes rules that deprive people of their 
property rights, when the Department of Health and Human Services tries 
to force nuns to violate their religion, or when the VA perpetuates a 
system that lets veterans die while they wait for their care? The 
people can't vote out bureaucrats who write rules at the EPA or the 
Department of Health and Human Services. They can't vote out bad 
leaders of the VA.
  These bureaucrats know it. They know they aren't accountable to the 
people even as they exercise great power. Without elections, the people 
lose. Washington is brimming with executive employees devoted to 
preserving the status quo.
  Then there is a revolving door of high-level Federal employees who 
head to major consulting firms and lobbying arms to influence the very 
agencies they came from. This breeds thousands of regulations that 
further enrich the connected and powerful--sometimes at the great 
expense of the average American.

                              {time}  1415

  It is our economy and the American workers who suffer the most. 
Federal regulations written and enacted by these bureaucracies impose a 
burden of about $1.89 trillion every year. That number is hard to make 
sense of or to even imagine. It comes to, roughly, $15,000 per U.S. 
household, or 10 percent of the American GDP.
  The Obama administration alone has written regulations that require 
over 583 million hours to comply with. That is an average of nearly 5 
hours of paperwork for every single full-time employee in America. The 
Federal Register is now the length of 80 King James Bibles.
  When bureaucrats and agency heads cannot be held accountable and when

[[Page 604]]

they keep their jobs regardless of corruption, incompetence, waste, 
fraud, abuse, or the backroom deals they make with special interests, 
that is the problem. That is the swamp, and we need to drain it.
  There is a reason the House is restructuring Washington first. It is 
that we made a commitment to the American people that we would drain 
the swamp. Now we are today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5.
  Before I go into that, let me be clear. After listening to the leader 
a minute ago, I thank all of the Federal employees who work so hard and 
give so much and who are so often unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and 
unapplauded.
  I oppose this unnecessary and potentially dangerous legislation in 
its entirety. However, I will focus my remarks on title V of this bill, 
which is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee. Title V, also known as the ALERT Act, is an attack on agency 
rulemaking, like the rest of this bill.
  This title would prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs from taking into account benefits when providing estimating 
costs of proposed and final rules. That is not transparency. It is one 
side of the story.
  This bill would also prevent a rule from taking effect until certain 
information is posted online for 6 months by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The only exceptions to 
this requirement would be if an agency exempts the rule from the notice 
and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or if the 
President issues an executive order.
  That is a 6-month delay in putting any rule in place no matter how 
big or how small. Right now, there are rules pending to protect the 
public from pipeline accidents involving hazardous liquids--those are 
our constituents, by the way--and to protect the privacy of patients' 
records. Again, those are our constituents. This bill would put an 
arbitrary 6-month moratorium on rules like these.
  The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which is a coalition of over 
150 labor, scientific, health and good government groups, sent a letter 
on January 10, 2017, opposing H.R. 5 to all Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  That letter read in part:

       The ALERT Act is designed to impede the government's 
     ability to implement critical new public health and safety 
     protections by adding a 6-month delay. This amounts to a 6-
     month regulatory moratorium even after the often lengthy 
     period required for developing and finalizing these 
     regulations. Such delays could extend well beyond that 
     initial 6-month period should the OIRA Administrator fail to 
     post the required information in a timely manner.

  The other titles of this bill are not any better and would impose so 
many requirements on agencies that issuing regulations to protect 
health and safety would be almost impossible.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee and the chief sponsor of one 
of the bills contained herein.
  Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act.
  This bill represents a monumental opportunity for the American 
people. After 8 years of one new crushing regulatory burden after 
another, the time has come to finally free the American people and 
create a new future for our economy.
  In 2017, regulatory burdens are at record levels. One recent analysis 
by the American Action Forum puts the cumulative paperwork burden on 
the American people at 11.5 billion hours.
  How could any small business person or entrepreneur survive in the 
face of this monstrous web of regulation?
  The short answer is that they cannot.
  It is a fact seen across my district as I have talked to workers 
covering every industry or occupation imaginable. When I ask 
businessowners about their concerns, first and foremost, the greatest 
hardship they face is the burden of Federal regulation and red tape. 
Funds, which otherwise could be invested in new employees, training, or 
equipment, must be dedicated to the demands of faceless bureaucrats in 
D.C. This applies to plumbers as well as to farmers, manufacturers to 
home builders. The list of those affected is long and varied.
  The simple truth is that the Obama administration's one-size-fits-all 
regulatory agenda has been a disaster for the American Dream, and we 
have seen over the past several months how disconnected it was from the 
wants and needs of Americans across the country.
  In Congress, however, we have heard their pleas and have taken action 
in the early days of the 115th Congress. H.R. 5 is the third regulatory 
reform bill we have considered in 2 weeks. It represents our brightest 
opportunity to unleash innovation and investment so that American 
businesses, big and small, can create new futures.
  I am also grateful that H.R. 5 includes my bill, the REVIEW Act. The 
REVIEW Act was featured as part of Speaker Ryan's A Better Way agenda 
and passed the House on a bipartisan basis last fall. It represents a 
simple premise: regulations should be narrowly tailored, and massive 
regulations deserve full and thorough scrutiny.
  The REVIEW Act would mandate a stay of any high-impact, billion-
dollar regulation while judicial review is underway. Historically, 
billion-dollar rules have been few and far between. In fact, only 26 
have been put in place since 2006; but, in recent years, their 
frequency has grown along with the unprecedented reach of the 
regulatory state. In the past 8 years, an average of three per year 
have been put in place.
  Their significance, however, lies in their impact on our country. 
These regulations are massive and have the potential to fundamentally 
and irreversibly change entire industries. If, later, judicial review 
finds the agency's reasoning to be legally unsound or contrary to the 
intent of Congress, the compliance costs incurred--often meaning jobs 
that were lost--cannot be undone. The REVIEW Act provides an important 
check on regulatory largesse and is an important piece of this bill.
  The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. It is 
time for us all to take our country and the economy in the right 
direction. The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the reforms that 
are necessary to get us there.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a senior member of our committee who has 
followed this matter very closely.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, these bills are a group of bills that have been 
considered for many years and have passed on partisan votes in the 
House. What you do when you repeal regulations or make it harder to 
have regulations is you make it better for business, better for the 
Chamber crowd, better for the manufacturing folk.
  But there is always a cost for everything. I think it was Isaac 
Newton who said: ``For every action, there is an equal and opposite 
reaction.'' You take these regulations off, increase business, and make 
it easier; but there is an equal and opposite effect in that Newtonian 
law as the consumer of the products.
  Whether it is food and food safety, whether it is water safety and 
purity, whether it is air safety, whether it is toys and manufacturers' 
defects or automobiles and safety in transportation--it could be 
airplane transportation--there is always a side that loses; and the 
side that loses is that of the consumers and the folks who will be 
injured and/or killed because of lack of regulations.
  I don't know how much one life is worth. If it is mine or one of my 
loved ones or one of my constituents--I am

[[Page 605]]

getting a little political here--it is worth a lot, but it is worth a 
lot no matter who it is, and there are going to be lots of people who 
will not survive some of these regulations. There are going to be 
injuries in the workplace because regulations for safety aren't there. 
There will be food products that are defective because regulations 
aren't in place, and people will eat food that is not appropriate, not 
pure.
  I had an amendment I proposed here on civil rights, and I think civil 
rights is one of our most precious rights--one that has been neglected 
on many occasions. That amendment would have said that this would not 
affect any civil rights rules, but it was not put in order; but it 
includes people with disabilities. Those are areas in which we should 
have exempted and not had anything stop our steadfastness toward 
securing civil rights and securing opportunities for people with 
disabilities.
  I am against the bills. I am for the consumer. I think there might be 
a measured way to do this, but this is a heavy-handed way to do it, and 
the consumer loses.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee, a 
member of the Judiciary Committee, and the chief sponsor of one of the 
bills contained herein.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act.
  In response to the previous gentleman's comments, I would just note 
that none of the regulations that we are considering today--the 
legislation--is going to do away with regulations altogether or even 
significantly, especially, regulations that have to do with people's 
safety. We are not trying to do anything that is going to affect the 
safety of the American people. We are just trying to make sure the 
regulations are smarter, and that is what this is all about.
  I am also pleased that title III of H.R. 5 is a bill that I sponsored 
last term and in this Congress--the Small Business Regulatory 
Flexibility Improvements Act. The Committee on Small Business, which I 
happen to chair, and the Committee on the Judiciary have crafted this 
bill with bipartisan input over many years.
  I thank Chairman Goodlatte for working with us on this important 
legislation, and I thank him for his leadership.
  Small businesses are found in every congressional district and in 
every industry. They provide livelihoods for millions of workers and 
for their families. Small businesses employ nearly half of the private 
sector workforce and generate two out of every three new jobs in the 
private sector today. The Federal Government should be doing everything 
it can to encourage these small but mighty job creators. Unfortunately, 
oppressive red tape has had the opposite effect of discouraging 
investment, expansion, and job growth. I am not saying that all 
regulations are bad, but there are too many rules. For too long, 
agencies have ignored their true effect, their true impact, on small 
businesses. Small businesses are at a real disadvantage because they 
have fewer resources and rarely have in-house counsel, the regulatory 
compliance staff that would be necessary to guide them through this 
maze. Generally, small businesses just don't have that.
  So shouldn't regulators, at the very least, examine the effects of 
new rules on small businesses and consider ways to reduce excessive 
burdens?
  Of course they should. There is a law, the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, or the RFA, which requires agencies to conduct this commonsense 
assessment when they regulate. Even though the law has been on the 
books for over 36 years, agencies too frequently just ignore its 
requirements.

                              {time}  1430

  The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, which is 
title III in this bill, eliminates loopholes that agencies like the 
Internal Revenue Service have used to avoid compliance with the RFA. It 
also forces agencies to analyze not only the direct, but also the 
indirect effects of rules on small businesses, just as agencies are 
required to do when promulgating major rules affecting, for example, 
the environment. It gives small businesses additional opportunities for 
early input on proposed rules and regulations and strengthens the RFA's 
requirements for agencies to periodically review old rules.
  Nothing in our legislation today takes away an agency's ability to 
issue a rule or a regulation, but it will force the rulemakers to think 
carefully before they act. It is great legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the 
chief sponsor of two of the measures contained here.
  Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for 
the opportunity to again lead on this issue and for the inclusion of 
two of my bills--the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the ALERT 
Act--in this incredibly important regulatory reform package.
  Because you see, Mr. Chairman, the realities of President Obama's 
failed liberal progressive experiment are all too real for the three-
quarters of a million Texans that I represent, realities like higher 
prices for families in Sulphur Springs trying to make ends meet, fewer 
jobs for those seeking work in Texarkana, and small businesses in 
Sherman and Rockwall forced to close their doors. Mr. Chairman, these 
are just a few of the countless devastating symptoms of overregulation 
that citizens across our great country have been forced to endure under 
President Obama.
  The President gives a good speech, and he did so again in his 
farewell address last night. But the President read us a fictional tale 
last night. The inescapable truth is that for 8 long years, the 
constant stream of regulations being pumped out by the Obama 
administration has taken a terrible toll on families, on businesses, 
and on our economy. It has made our Nation less prosperous and leaves 
folks worse off than they were before.
  The urgency to reverse this unsustainable regulatory quagmire 
couldn't have been made more clear than in November, when the American 
people rose up and voted for a new President who vowed not to subject 
us to more of the same. That is where my bill and all of the bills in 
the Regulatory Accountability Act come into play.
  When you look back at the last 8 years, many people wonder how the 
Obama administration was allowed to grow at such an alarming rate. Now, 
while there are a lot of troubling factors that go into that equation, 
the result of an infamous 1984 Supreme Court decision, the Chevron 
doctrine, is certainly recognized as one of the key culprits. For three 
decades now, this doctrine has required courts to defer to agency 
interpretations of congressional intent.
  Said in more plain terms, Mr. Chairman, this means that when 
individuals challenge Federal regulators in court, the deck is stacked 
in favor of the regulators, the very same regulators who have written 
the regulations in the first place. Letting regulators grade their own 
papers, if that doesn't reinforce the need to drain the swamp, then I 
don't know what does.
  My legislation, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, will fix 
this perversion of our Constitution by ensuring that Congress, not 
executive branch agencies, write our laws and that courts, not agency 
bureaucrats, interpret our laws.
  Mr. Chairman, title V of this bill is my ALERT Act legislation, and 
it provides another critical remedy to the current regulatory process 
by fixing the lack of transparency that is both unfair and harmful to 
individuals and small businesses across the country.
  Right now, the current law requires the administration to release an 
update twice a year on the regulations

[[Page 606]]

that are being developed by Federal agencies--the problem is that the 
regulators are ignoring the law--as these updates have either been very 
late or never issued at all under President Obama's watch.
  Up to this point, there hasn't been a way to reinforce and enforce 
these requirements. So the ALERT Act tackles this problem by forcing 
the executive branch to make the American people aware of regulations 
that are coming down the track; and it prohibits any regulations from 
going into effect unless and until detailed information on the cost of 
the regulation, its impact on jobs, and the legal basis for the 
regulation have been available to the public on the Internet for at 
least 6 months.
  Mr. Chairman, the way our government has been allowed to function 
under this administration isn't how our forefathers intended our 
government to work. Today's legislation takes a giant step forward in 
fixing how Washington works. I have already spoken to President-elect 
Trump about partnering together to make this the law of the land and to 
give the American people back the government that our Founders 
intended, a government that works for them, not the other way around.
  Mr. Chairman, we owe them nothing less.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Donovan). The gentleman from Virginia has 9 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 15\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 5 and urge my 
colleagues to do so as well. This bill will reform our regulatory 
system and reduce burdens on our farmers, ranchers, and businesses.
  H.R. 5 will create a more streamlined, transparent, and accountable 
regulatory process and give the American people a stronger voice in 
agency decisionmaking.
  Requiring agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking option and 
providing additional opportunities for judicial review will ensure that 
regulations are narrowly tailored, addressing the issues at hand; and 
this will reduce the burden on farmers, ranchers, businesses, and 
everyday citizens.
  This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chief sponsor of one of the bills 
contained herein.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
bill on the floor before us, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.
  Over the last 8 years, it has been clear that our country has been on 
the wrong path. Through overregulation and government bureaucracy, the 
chance at the American Dream has seemed to be slipping away and 
unreachable for far too many Americans. In November, the American 
people spoke and made it clear: it is time to change course and reform 
the rulemaking process to energize robust growth in the American 
economy.
  To do so, we not only need to address the number of Federal 
regulations, but also their convoluted and complex nature. Our 
constituents should not need a law degree or an army of consultants and 
accountants to understand the rules they are required to follow. 
Nevertheless, given their technical language, it can be extremely 
difficult to fully understand proposals unless one is an expert in that 
field.
  Title VI of H.R. 5 includes language from a bill that I introduced 
earlier in this Congress. My bill, the Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act, would require each Federal agency, when providing 
notice of a proposed rulemaking, to produce a 100-word, plain-language 
summary of the proposal and make it publicly available online. This 
commonsense reform would give the American people straightforward and 
uncomplicated access to the rules proposed by the executive branch.
  The American people deserve to be informed about the rules and 
regulations being proposed by their government, and I am honored to 
have my legislation included in this regulation-curbing package.
  I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership on H.R. 5, as well as 
my colleagues who joined me in contributing language to this critical 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, 
the Regulatory Accountability Act.
  Many speaking today in support of this legislation are right to point 
out the crushing impact that Washington's overregulation has had on our 
economy. We know all too well how overregulation has driven up the cost 
of health care, financial services, and energy; and it is long past 
time for reform.
  I would like to highlight a provision of this legislation that I 
offered 3 years ago that requires agencies to identify when new rules 
will have a negative impact on jobs and wages.
  Too often, regulators and agency heads are well aware of the negative 
impact a regulation will have on Americans' jobs and wages even before 
it is imposed, but they impose it anyway. Specifically, my provision 
defines when rules have a negative impact on jobs and wages and 
requires agency heads approving such a rule to submit a statement that 
they approve the rule knowing its negative impact.
  When people in this far-off Capitol take away the jobs and livelihood 
of working families, as they have done with miners and power plant 
workers and laborers in my district, they need to own up to it. The 
Regulatory Accountability Act will help us to provide American workers 
with substantial relief from what is often Washington overreach, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
the distinguished ranking member for convening us. It reenforces my 
commitment to the importance of the House Judiciary Committee for 
important, innovative, and groundbreaking, in some instances, work that 
we have done.
  In this instance, I find fault because this legislation does not meet 
that criteria. Just a few days ago, we read the Constitution, and some 
might make the argument that H.R. 5 fits very comfortably into the Bill 
of Rights, Amendment V and Amendment XIV. Both frame themselves around 
the question of due process. I make the argument that this legislation 
is sorely lacking.
  I want to take up, first of all, a point made by my colleague, a 
member of the Rules Committee. This legislation, to my recalling, has 
been circulated for many years. It seems that I have been in the House 
when a bill like H.R. 5 has passed over and over again.
  This bill appeared in the 114th Congress. Many Members left since 
that time. New Members are here. New Members, Republicans and 
Democrats, will be added to the House Judiciary Committee and to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. None of them will have had the opportunity 
for regular order, to be able to ensure hearings and to be able to 
engage in input with amendments that I would agree or disagree with, 
but to have a vigorous debate in our Judiciary Committee as well as in 
the Senate. It did not happen. We are now on the floor of the House. So 
that is one fracture of what we are doing, one Achilles' heel to this 
legislation.

[[Page 607]]

  In the last 24 hours, I heard a news account of a little boy who 
swallowed magnets that were produced by a particular company. It went 
through the process. It was designated dangerous; and then, 
unfortunately, that dangerous status was pulled back, and the company 
is excited about producing those magnets again.
  The little boy who swallowed the magnets, I think, was about 2 years 
old. A happy little boy, of course, that is how children are. He had 
major intestinal surgery, and most of his intestines were removed. He 
is now 6 years old, and he must now be fed intravenously.

                              {time}  1445

  His devastation is our failure. That is what we are facing with H.R. 
5.
  I don't know if my colleagues agree, as boring as the Administrative 
Procedure Act was in law school, I liked the course. I had a great 
professor who made me understand the life of the APA and its value. 
This legislation attempts to rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act 
to the detriment of the American people.
  Consider this, hardworking agencies should have oversight; that is 
what our committees are all about. They should have oversight. They 
will now have to jump through hoops of 70 new criteria. I didn't say 
10; I didn't say a quarter of 100, 25; I didn't say a half of 100, 50; 
but 70 when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, 
the scope of the problems the rule meant to address, and potential cost 
and benefits of the proposal and alternative.
  I want to see small businesses thrive. Part of that includes a 
reasonable healthcare package like ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, 
for its employees, a reasonable new structure dealing with taxation 
that helps small businesses and does not give a mountain of benefit to 
major corporations.
  Maybe we should address the needs of small businesses in that manner, 
or, as my minority constituents tell me, access to credit which is 
generally denied to women, Hispanics, in some instances, and certainly 
African Americans. That may help our small businesses get them back on 
their feet. But that is not what H.R. 5 does. It stifles the work of 
our agencies of which we have attributed to them, the Small Business 
Administration, Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade 
Commission, the FCC, and, in some instances, the Department of Justice 
articulating regulations dealing with funding of juvenile issues.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  These are agencies that are depended upon to give regular order. 
Oversight is important, but I would make the argument that stifling, 
denying, demolishing, or destroying is not order.
  Now, I had an amendment that I think is crucial. It is to provide an 
exception under this bill for regulations that help prevent cyber 
attacks on election processes or institutions. Mr. Chairman, not only 
have we found with much profoundness that a foreign entity, in this 
instance Russia, maybe it might be Iran, maybe it might be some other 
country, intruded into the democratic process of elections. I am glad 
Senator Graham said this is not Republicans or Democrats. This is about 
the integrity of the election system. And why we were hesitant to make 
this amendment in order, because there is no stopping of the peaceful 
transfer of government. The American people see to that process. Thank 
God for our love of democracy. We are able to express our opposition in 
many different ways.
  But there is no doubt there was not only intrusion, there was skewing 
from one candidate versus another. There are prints--this is public 
knowledge--that have been able to be tracked to suggest who, what, and 
what country, and how far up the chain to Mr. Putin that it went to.
  So my amendment, I think, was constructive. Why would we be reluctant 
to debate it? Why would we be reluctant to acknowledge the intelligence 
report assessing Russian activities and intentions in the recent U.S. 
elections? And why would we be reluctant to find out who was involved?
  H.R. 5 is not doing what it is supposed to do. It is, in fact, 
undermining the Constitution and eliminating the protections for a 
little boy who now lives his life completely different because maybe we 
didn't intervene in the regulatory manner of oversight over that 
product that we should have, and maybe now we have given them a pass so 
that other children might suffer the same consequences. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and send it back for us 
to do the work of the people in regular order.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 5, and let's get back to what we are talking about. We are talking 
about overregulation right now. We are not talking about the Red army 
or any other type of a red threat that is coming in here. The real 
threat is red tape. We are not talking about scotch tape or duct tape, 
we are talking about red tape. There is $2 trillion worth of red tape 
that the American consumers have to pay for every year. That is 
trillion with a ``T.'' Every single regulation that goes into effect, 
not by elected officials but by unelected bureaucrats, I am not saying 
they are not well intended, I am just saying they are not well thought 
out. And we really don't know who is going to pay for all of these. The 
burden is on the American consumers, the American taxpayers.
  So if we are talking about creating jobs and if we are talking about 
getting our economy back on track, let's get the heavy regulatory boot 
of the American government off of the throat of American job creators. 
Why don't we make it easier for people to be profitable. Why don't we 
make it easier for people to start a new business. Why don't we make 
the prices cheaper on the shelves, and all of the services that are out 
there cheaper for the American people to buy and purchase.
  We get caught up in debate about things that don't make sense to 
everyday Americans. They elect us to come and represent them. They 
don't elect us to preach to them. They don't elect us to say: You, 
poor, stupid people, you don't understand, we are trying to help you.
  The Congress has oversight of this. This is our job. Why would we 
turn it over to unelected bureaucrats. How about this: In 2015, we 
passed 114 laws. Meanwhile, there were 3,410 rules that were put into 
effect. Is there a little bit of a problem with the balance there? Is 
there a little bit of a problem with the people who sent us to 
represent them telling them: you don't understand, that rule, that 
regulation, I never had a chance to weigh in on it?
  They are asking: Then why the heck did we send you?
  And I appreciate the fact that Federal employees need to be 
appreciated. Being one of those employees, I do appreciate that. When I 
go home, I love when people tell me: you know what, we really 
appreciate that you are standing up for us. We really appreciate that 
you are watching where our tax dollars are going. We really appreciate 
the fact that you are trying to make it easier for us to breathe, make 
it easier for us to succeed, make it easier for us to supply all this 
revenue.
  Every single penny that this government needs to run on is not 
supplied by the Congress, it is supplied by hardworking American 
taxpayers. And you know what, we can't even collect enough money from 
them to cover our bills. We have to go out and borrow more. But they 
are responsible for it. We sign their name on every single debt that we 
make.
  It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about some 
other debate. This is about what we are doing to hardworking American 
taxpayers and hardworking Americans every single day.
  Then some say: you don't understand, you poor, stupid people, we are 
trying to make the air clean and the water drinkable. Yes, I understand 
that. That is what we are doing. Why do you try to change it into 
something

[[Page 608]]

that doesn't even make sense? Please go back into your communities and 
talk to these folks that are saddled with these expenses and look them 
in the eye and tell them you are just not smart enough to know how 
government works. The one thing they know is we are $20 trillion in the 
red.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and 
the chairman.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 
2017. I have a number of concerns with many provisions of this 
voluminous page, this 82-page bill. It has not gone through regular 
order, not one committee meeting. Congress just came into session last 
week. So we have got 50-plus new Members in this body who have not had 
one single day of an opportunity to pay any attention to learn what is 
in this bill. Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
going to force their folks to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I urge them to 
vote ``no'' and think about it. The reason they should think about it 
is because H.R. 5 is a destructive revision of the Administrative 
Procedure Act which fiendishly convolutes the agency rulemaking process 
through numerous analytical requirements. We call that gumming up the 
works.
  These requirements, which are largely opposed by the Nation's leading 
administrative law experts, would cause years of delays in the 
rulemaking process and deregulate entire industries through rulemaking 
avoidance by agencies.
  In addition to imposing over 60 new procedural requirements on 
regulatory protections, title I of H.R. 5 imposes a new super-mandate 
requiring that agencies adopt the least costly rule considered during 
the rulemaking that meets relevant statutory objectives and permits 
agencies to choose a more expensive option only if the additional 
benefits justify its additional costs.
  The AFL-CIO has observed that this provision would make protecting 
workers and the public secondary. Limiting costs and impacts on 
business and corporations is the prime purpose of this legislation. 
There is little doubt that this proposal will compromise public health, 
workplace safety, and environmental protections. Agencies will be 
forced to make penny-wise and pound-foolish decisions. It costs more to 
remedy an environmental or financial calamity than it would be to 
protect the public from the calamity occurring in the first place, 
which the underlying regulation would do, but they don't want 
regulations. This is unbelievable.
  Title II of the bill abolishes judicial deference to agencies' 
reasoned statutory interpretations, which has been a hallmark of 
judicial review for more than three decades. Talk about judicial 
restraint and not legislating from the bench. That is what the Supreme 
Court in its Chevron rule has emphasized over the last three decades.
  In addition to incentivizing judicial activism by generalist courts, 
which could engage in rulemaking from the bench by making policy 
decisions rather than strictly interpreting the law, this provision 
will also make the regulatory system more costly and time-consuming 
because it would require agencies to take even more time to promulgate 
critical protections that the court ultimately decides on its own 
through its ability to legislate from the bench that it doesn't like. 
This is nonsense. It is hypocritical.
  Title III of the bill further paralyzes agency rulemaking through 
unworkable, complex requirements, while endowing the hallowed Small 
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy with broad authority to 
act as the gatekeeper of our Nation's entire regulatory system. As the 
Center for Progressive Reform reported in a 2013 report, this entity, 
this Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, exists in an 
unchecked capacity to funnel ``special interest pressure into agency 
rulemakings, even though such interests have already had ample 
opportunity to comment on proposed regulations.''
  So in other words, the Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy is a back door wide open to corporate interests seeking to 
come in and undermine the regulatory authority of an agency.
  At a time when there has been much talking and tweeting about 
draining the swamp, this measure would function as a green light to 
special interests to manipulate the regulatory system in their favor.
  Moreover, my Republican colleagues' repeated claims that this measure 
will create regulation by representation, or clawback authority from 
the executive branch, that argument is fundamentally undermined by the 
fact that this bill consolidates the role of a subagency, the Small 
Business Administration, in such an opaque and reckless manner.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Have Members ever heard of any legislation 
that purports to take power back from unelected bureaucrats and then 
places it right back in the hands of a bureaucrat in the same piece of 
legislation? This is ridiculous.
  Title IV of H.R. 5 would automatically delay the effective date of 
any rule exceeding $1 billion in costs that is challenged in court, 
regardless of whether the party challenging the rule has any likelihood 
of success on the merits, is actually harmed by the rule, or whether 
staying the rule would be contrary to public interest.

                              {time}  1500

  So while they sit here and take the rights of regular, ordinary 
working people to sue corporations under the guise of so-called tort 
reform, they turn around in this legislation, open the courthouse door 
wide to corporations to come in and file frivolous complaints against a 
regulation and automatically stall it. This is ridiculous.
  This legislation is rife with corporate protections at the expense of 
the people, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).
  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the 
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.
  Over the last 8 years, we have seen the administration authorize 
hundreds of executive orders directing Federal agencies to issue, 
finalize, and implement an unprecedented number of regulations. Most of 
these impose one-size-fits-all standards on small businesses with 
little to no consideration for their impact on small businesses.
  As a member of the Small Business Committee, it is kind of my job to 
go out and find out what small businesses have to offer, what is 
impeding their ability to create and make more jobs for our industry 
and for our economy. What we have found is that overregulation is 
stifling them. This is the problem.
  This is not something that we have made up. That is the problem in 
this economy. That is why I am proud to support H.R. 5, and 
particularly title III, which addresses one vital area that protects 
small businesses--the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA.
  The RFA requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of new 
regulations on small businesses. However, Federal agencies regularly 
exploit loopholes in the RFA requirements that allow them to produce 
inadequate or inaccurate analysis of impact.
  We know this can have devastating outcomes, as witnessed in the 
Department of Labor's overtime rule issued last year, which was one of 
the top concerns for many of the small businesses and nonprofits that 
operate in my district and across this country.
  Title III of H.R. 5 would eliminate loopholes to ensure compliance 
and would also require agencies to provide more detailed information in 
each analysis.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 609]]

  Mr. Chairman, in closing, this has been an enlightening discussion 
because we have determined that H.R. 5 is based on the faulty premise 
that environmental and public safety protections kill jobs, result in 
economically stifling costs, and promote uncertainty.
  In fact, regulatory protections that ensure the safety of American-
made products unquestionably foster job creation and protect the 
competitiveness of our business and global marketplace. This explains 
why so many organizations--more than 150--strongly oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents and the American citizens deserve 
something better than H.R. 5. We need legislation that creates middle 
class financial security and opportunity. We need sensible regulations 
that protect American families from economic ruin, that bring predatory 
financial practices to an end.
  We need workplace safety protections that ensure hardworking 
Americans can go to work each day without having to risk their lives as 
a result of hazardous work environments.
  Unfortunately, the measure before us does nothing to advance any of 
these critical goals, and so I must, therefore, oppose H.R. 5 and ask 
my colleagues to support a negative vote on this matter.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The facts are plain, the conclusion is clear: the rampant tide of 
unchecked, unbalanced Federal regulation is overwhelming job creators 
and households all across this Nation. Thanks to Washington's endless 
excess of regulations, hardworking Americans face higher prices, lower 
wages, fewer jobs, and fewer new business starts; and America as a 
whole is less competitive, less innovative, and less prosperous.
  Federal regulations now impose an estimated burden of an amazing 
$1.89 trillion per year. That burden is burying America's job creators 
and suffocating job opportunities. It equals roughly $15,000 per U.S. 
household, over 10 percent of America's GDP, and more than the GDP of 
all but eight countries in the world.
  The Obama administration set new records for numbers and effects of 
major regulations, over 600 in total, with an average of 81 per year. 
That is roughly one every 3 working days. Through just August 2016, 
these rules had economic effects of over $740 billion and imposed 194 
million paperwork burden-hours; and this only built upon the 
insufficiently checked regulation already imposed by previous 
administrations.
  This problem must be solved, and this bill is the number one solution 
to this problem. Its bold, innovative measures will unleash American 
freedom, opportunity, and resourcefulness by dramatically reducing new 
regulatory costs; and they will do that while still allowing agencies 
to achieve the benefits that Congress' statutes have tasked them to 
achieve.
  Far fewer costs, all the benefits, who could be against that? We all 
should be for it, just as the American people are.
  Support the American people. Support the Regulatory Accountability 
Act. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, 
the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,'' which is a radical 
measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations 
to protect the public.
  I oppose this legislation because it would effectively shut down the 
entire U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock 
existing regulatory statute.
  My opposition to H.R. 5 is amplified by the Rules Committee's 
decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to 
provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on 
election processes or institutions.''
  Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the 
subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian 
cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure.
  Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified 
version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian 
Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed 
that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was 
the subject of cyberattacks.
  These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have 
been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and 
were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential 
contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald 
Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to 
invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his 
political opponent.
  All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment.
  The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition if to 
this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it 
harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the 
entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests.
  The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues 
to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies.
  These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that 
are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of 
agency actions and policy rationale.
  For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are 
in the best position to carry out the statutes.
  The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less 
experienced judges to second guess expert opinion--essentially 
sanctioning judicial activism.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous 
legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans 
so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our 
highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions.
  The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from 
our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the 
threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber 
networks.
  As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist 
Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected 
officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately 
concerned constituents.
  To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule, 
let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson 
Lee Amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the 
Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted.
  The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation 
dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national 
security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American 
people.
  We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the 
election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about 
the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the 
institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and 
will not be tolerated.
  The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the 
uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders' 
intentions.
  On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the 
goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision 
makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, 
and that adhere to tradecraft standards.
  Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community 
provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best 
and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential 
opportunities to advance U.S. national security.
  This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand 
complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to 
hide or obfuscate their activities.
  My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those 
regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack 
from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals.
  Specifically, the amendment that the Rules Committee disallowed for 
presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the 
American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering, 
alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign 
countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining 
election processes or institutions.
  In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in 
further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network 
defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious 
actor might deploy or

[[Page 610]]

detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting data 
that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to 
identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the 
American public.
  Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game 
the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict.
  It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new 
public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their 
legal obligations.
  The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic 
processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent 
activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to 
interfere with elections is also warranted.
  We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of 
cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow 
doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence 
elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. 
government.
  My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of 
our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve 
the proponents' major purposes.
  For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.
  The Acting 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. 5

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                 TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Rule making.
Sec. 104. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major guidance; 
              presidential authority to issue guidelines for issuance 
              of guidance.
Sec. 105. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of 
              proof; evidence; record as basis of decision.
Sec. 106. Actions reviewable.
Sec. 107. Scope of review.
Sec. 108. Added definition.
Sec. 109. Effective date.

             TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Judicial review of statutory and regulatory interpretations.

   TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Clarification and expansion of rules covered by the 
              regulatory flexibility act.
Sec. 303. Expansion of report of regulatory agenda.
Sec. 304. Requirements providing for more detailed analyses.
Sec. 305. Repeal of waiver and delay authority; additional powers of 
              the Chief Counsel for advocacy.
Sec. 306. Procedures for gathering comments.
Sec. 307. Periodic review of rules.
Sec. 308. Judicial review of compliance with the requirements of the 
              regulatory flexibility act available after publication of 
              the final rule.
Sec. 309. Jurisdiction of court of appeals over rules implementing the 
              regulatory flexibility act.
Sec. 310. Establishment and approval of small business concern size 
              standards by Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
Sec. 311. Clerical amendments.
Sec. 312. Agency preparation of guides.
Sec. 313. Comptroller general report.

 TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS 
                                  ACT

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Relief pending review.

         TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Office of information and regulatory affairs publication of 
              information relating to rules.

      TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Requirement to post a 100 word summary to regulations.gov.

                 TITLE I--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Regulatory Accountability 
     Act''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 551 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) `major rule' means any rule that the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     determines is likely to impose--
       ``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more, adjusted annually for inflation;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, local, or tribal 
     government agencies, or geographic regions;
       ``(C) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
       ``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the 
     economy;
       ``(16) `high-impact rule' means any rule that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs determines is likely to impose an annual cost on the 
     economy of $1,000,000,000 or more, adjusted annually for 
     inflation;
       ``(17) `negative-impact on jobs and wages rule' means any 
     rule that the agency that made the rule or the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
     determines is likely to--
       ``(A) in one or more sectors of the economy that has a 6-
     digit code under the North American Industry Classification 
     System, reduce employment not related to new regulatory 
     compliance by 1 percent or more annually during the 1-year, 
     5-year, or 10-year period after implementation;
       ``(B) in one or more sectors of the economy that has a 6-
     digit code under the North American Industry Classification 
     System, reduce average weekly wages for employment not 
     related to new regulatory compliance by 1 percent or more 
     annually during the 1-year, 5-year, or 10-year period after 
     implementation;
       ``(C) in any industry area (as such term is defined in the 
     Current Population Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics) in which the most recent annual unemployment rate 
     for the industry area is greater than 5 percent, as 
     determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Current 
     Population Survey, reduce employment not related to new 
     regulatory compliance during the first year after 
     implementation; or
       ``(D) in any industry area in which the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics projects in the Occupational Employment Statistics 
     program that the employment level will decrease by 1 percent 
     or more, further reduce employment not related to new 
     regulatory compliance during the first year after 
     implementation;
       ``(18) `guidance' means an agency statement of general 
     applicability and future effect, other than a regulatory 
     action, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory 
     or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or 
     regulatory issue;
       ``(19) `major guidance' means guidance that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs finds is likely to lead to--
       ``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more, adjusted annually for inflation;
       ``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, local or tribal 
     government agencies, or geographic regions;
       ``(C) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
       ``(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the 
     economy;
       ``(20) the `Information Quality Act' means section 515 of 
     Public Law 106-554, the Treasury and General Government 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and guidelines 
     issued by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs or other agencies pursuant to the Act; and
       ``(21) the `Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' 
     means the office established under section 3503 of chapter 35 
     of title 44 and any successor to that office.''.

     SEC. 103. RULE MAKING.

       (a) Section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``(a) This section applies'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Applicability.--This section applies''.
       (b) Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subsections (b) through (e) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Rule Making Considerations.--In a rule making, an 
     agency shall make all preliminary and final factual 
     determinations based on evidence and consider, in addition to 
     other applicable considerations, the following:

[[Page 611]]

       ``(1) The legal authority under which a rule may be 
     proposed, including whether a rule making is required by 
     statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether 
     the agency has discretion to commence a rule making.
       ``(2) Other statutory considerations applicable to whether 
     the agency can or should propose a rule or undertake other 
     agency action.
       ``(3) The specific nature and significance of the problem 
     the agency may address with a rule (including the degree and 
     nature of risks the problem poses and the priority of 
     addressing those risks compared to other matters or 
     activities within the agency's jurisdiction), whether the 
     problem warrants new agency action, and the countervailing 
     risks that may be posed by alternatives for new agency 
     action.
       ``(4) Whether existing rules have created or contributed to 
     the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether 
     those rules could be amended or rescinded to address the 
     problem in whole or part.
       ``(5) Any reasonable alternatives for a new rule or other 
     response identified by the agency or interested persons, 
     including not only responses that mandate particular conduct 
     or manners of compliance, but also--
       ``(A) the alternative of no Federal response;
       ``(B) amending or rescinding existing rules;
       ``(C) potential regional, State, local, or tribal 
     regulatory action or other responses that could be taken in 
     lieu of agency action; and
       ``(D) potential responses that--
       ``(i) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or 
     manners of compliance;
       ``(ii) establish economic incentives to encourage desired 
     behavior;
       ``(iii) provide information upon which choices can be made 
     by the public; or
       ``(iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather 
     than agency actions that specify conduct or manners of 
     compliance.
       ``(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       ``(A) the potential costs and benefits associated with 
     potential alternative rules and other responses considered 
     under section 553(b)(5), including direct, indirect, and 
     cumulative costs and benefits and estimated impacts on jobs 
     (including an estimate of the net gain or loss in domestic 
     jobs), wages, economic growth, innovation, economic 
     competitiveness, and impacts on low income populations;
       ``(B) means to increase the cost-effectiveness of any 
     Federal response; and
       ``(C) incentives for innovation, consistency, 
     predictability, lower costs of enforcement and compliance (to 
     government entities, regulated entities, and the public), and 
     flexibility.
       ``(c) Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Major 
     Rules, High-Impact Rules, Negative-Impact on Jobs and Wages 
     Rules, and Rules Involving Novel Legal or Policy Issues.--In 
     the case of a rule making for a major rule, a high-impact 
     rule, a negative-impact on jobs and wages rule, or a rule 
     that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of 
     statutory mandates, not later than 90 days before a notice of 
     proposed rule making is published in the Federal Register, an 
     agency shall publish advance notice of proposed rule making 
     in the Federal Register. In publishing such advance notice, 
     the agency shall--
       ``(1) include a written statement identifying, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) the nature and significance of the problem the agency 
     may address with a rule, including data and other evidence 
     and information on which the agency expects to rely for the 
     proposed rule;
       ``(B) the legal authority under which a rule may be 
     proposed, including whether a rule making is required by 
     statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether 
     the agency has discretion to commence a rule making;
       ``(C) preliminary information available to the agency 
     concerning the other considerations specified in subsection 
     (b);
       ``(D) in the case of a rule that involves a novel legal or 
     policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, the nature of 
     and potential reasons to adopt the novel legal or policy 
     position upon which the agency may base a proposed rule; and
       ``(E) an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by 
     which the agency will measure progress toward that objective;
       ``(2) solicit written data, views or argument from 
     interested persons concerning the information and issues 
     addressed in the advance notice; and
       ``(3) provide for a period of not fewer than 60 days for 
     interested persons to submit such written data, views, or 
     argument to the agency.
       ``(d) Notices of Proposed Rule Making; Determinations of 
     Other Agency Course.--(1) Before it determines to propose a 
     rule, and following completion of procedures under subsection 
     (c), if applicable, the agency shall consult with the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs. If the agency thereafter determines to propose a 
     rule, the agency shall publish a notice of proposed rule 
     making, which shall include--
       ``(A) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public 
     rule making proceedings;
       ``(B) reference to the legal authority under which the rule 
     is proposed;
       ``(C) the terms of the proposed rule;
       ``(D) a description of information known to the agency on 
     the subject and issues of the proposed rule, including but 
     not limited to--
       ``(i) a summary of information known to the agency 
     concerning the considerations specified in subsection (b);
       ``(ii) a summary of additional information the agency 
     provided to and obtained from interested persons under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(iii) a summary of any preliminary risk assessment or 
     regulatory impact analysis performed by the agency; and
       ``(iv) information specifically identifying all data, 
     studies, models, and other evidence or information considered 
     or used by the agency in connection with its determination to 
     propose the rule;
       ``(E)(i) a reasoned preliminary determination of need for 
     the rule based on the information described under 
     subparagraph (D);
       ``(ii) an additional statement of whether a rule is 
     required by statute; and
       ``(iii) an achievable objective for the rule and metrics by 
     which the agency will measure progress toward that objective;
       ``(F) a reasoned preliminary determination that the 
     benefits of the proposed rule meet the relevant statutory 
     objectives and justify the costs of the proposed rule 
     (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6)), based on the information described under 
     subparagraph (D);
       ``(G) a discussion of--
       ``(i) the alternatives to the proposed rule, and other 
     alternative responses, considered by the agency under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(ii) the costs and benefits of those alternatives 
     (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6));
       ``(iii) whether those alternatives meet relevant statutory 
     objectives; and
       ``(iv) why the agency did not propose any of those 
     alternatives; and
       ``(H)(i) a statement of whether existing rules have created 
     or contributed to the problem the agency seeks to address 
     with the proposed rule; and
       ``(ii) if so, whether or not the agency proposes to amend 
     or rescind any such rules, and why.

     All information provided to or considered by the agency, and 
     steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with 
     its determination to propose the rule, including any 
     preliminary risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis 
     prepared by the agency and all other information prepared or 
     described by the agency under subparagraph (D) and, at the 
     discretion of the President or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, information 
     provided by that Office in consultations with the agency, 
     shall be placed in the docket for the proposed rule and made 
     accessible to the public by electronic means and otherwise 
     for the public's use when the notice of proposed rule making 
     is published.
       ``(2)(A) If the agency undertakes procedures under 
     subsection (c) and determines thereafter not to propose a 
     rule, the agency shall, following consultation with the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, publish a 
     notice of determination of other agency course. A notice of 
     determination of other agency course shall include 
     information required by paragraph (1)(D) to be included in a 
     notice of proposed rule making and a description of the 
     alternative response the agency determined to adopt.
       ``(B) If in its determination of other agency course the 
     agency makes a determination to amend or rescind an existing 
     rule, the agency need not undertake additional proceedings 
     under subsection (c) before it publishes a notice of proposed 
     rule making to amend or rescind the existing rule.

     All information provided to or considered by the agency, and 
     steps to obtain information by the agency, in connection with 
     its determination of other agency course, including but not 
     limited to any preliminary risk assessment or regulatory 
     impact analysis prepared by the agency and all other 
     information that would be required to be prepared or 
     described by the agency under paragraph (1)(D) if the agency 
     had determined to publish a notice of proposed rule making 
     and, at the discretion of the President or the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
     information provided by that Office in consultations with the 
     agency, shall be placed in the docket for the determination 
     and made accessible to the public by electronic means and 
     otherwise for the public's use when the notice of 
     determination is published.
       ``(3) After notice of proposed rule making required by this 
     section, the agency shall provide interested persons an 
     opportunity to participate in the rule making through 
     submission of written data, views, or arguments with or 
     without opportunity for oral presentation, except that--
       ``(A) if a hearing is required under paragraph (4)(B) or 
     subsection (e), opportunity for oral presentation shall be 
     provided pursuant to that requirement; or
       ``(B) when other than under subsection (e) of this section 
     rules are required by statute or at the discretion of the 
     agency to be made on the record after opportunity for an 
     agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 shall apply, and 
     paragraph (4), the requirements of subsection (e) to receive 
     comment outside of the

[[Page 612]]

     procedures of sections 556 and 557, and the petition 
     procedures of subsection (e)(6) shall not apply.

     The agency shall provide not fewer than 60 days for 
     interested persons to submit written data, views, or argument 
     (or 120 days in the case of a proposed major or high-impact 
     rule).
       ``(4)(A) Within 30 days of publication of notice of 
     proposed rule making, a member of the public may petition for 
     a hearing in accordance with section 556 to determine whether 
     any evidence or other information upon which the agency bases 
     the proposed rule fails to comply with the Information 
     Quality Act.
       ``(B)(i) The agency may, upon review of the petition, 
     determine without further process to exclude from the rule 
     making the evidence or other information that is the subject 
     of the petition and, if appropriate, withdraw the proposed 
     rule. The agency shall promptly publish any such 
     determination.
       ``(ii) If the agency does not resolve the petition under 
     the procedures of clause (i), it shall grant any such 
     petition that presents a prima facie case that evidence or 
     other information upon which the agency bases the proposed 
     rule fails to comply with the Information Quality Act, hold 
     the requested hearing not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     the petition, provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-
     examination at the hearing, and decide the issues presented 
     by the petition not later than 60 days after receipt of the 
     petition. The agency may deny any petition that it determines 
     does not present such a prima facie case.
       ``(C) There shall be no judicial review of the agency's 
     disposition of issues considered and decided or determined 
     under subparagraph (B)(ii) until judicial review of the 
     agency's final action. There shall be no judicial review of 
     an agency's determination to withdraw a proposed rule under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) on the basis of the petition.
       ``(D) Failure to petition for a hearing under this 
     paragraph shall not preclude judicial review of any claim 
     based on the Information Quality Act under chapter 7 of this 
     title.
       ``(e) Hearings for High-Impact Rules.--Following notice of 
     a proposed rule making, receipt of comments on the proposed 
     rule, and any hearing held under subsection (d)(4), and 
     before adoption of any high-impact rule, the agency shall 
     hold a hearing in accordance with sections 556 and 557, 
     unless such hearing is waived by all participants in the rule 
     making other than the agency. The agency shall provide a 
     reasonable opportunity for cross-examination at such hearing. 
     The hearing shall be limited to the following issues of fact, 
     except that participants at the hearing other than the agency 
     may waive determination of any such issue:
       ``(1) Whether the agency's asserted factual predicate for 
     the rule is supported by the evidence.
       ``(2) Whether there is an alternative to the proposed rule 
     that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at a 
     lower cost (including all costs to be considered under 
     subsection (b)(6)) than the proposed rule.
       ``(3) If there is more than one alternative to the proposed 
     rule that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at 
     a lower cost than the proposed rule, which alternative would 
     achieve the relevant statutory objectives at the lowest cost.
       ``(4) Whether, if the agency proposes to adopt a rule that 
     is more costly than the least costly alternative that would 
     achieve the relevant statutory objectives (including all 
     costs to be considered under subsection (b)(6)), the 
     additional benefits of the more costly rule exceed the 
     additional costs of the more costly rule.
       ``(5) Whether the evidence and other information upon which 
     the agency bases the proposed rule meets the requirements of 
     the Information Quality Act.
       ``(6) Upon petition by an interested person who has 
     participated in the rule making, other issues relevant to the 
     rule making, unless the agency determines that consideration 
     of the issues at the hearing would not advance consideration 
     of the rule or would, in light of the nature of the need for 
     agency action, unreasonably delay completion of the rule 
     making. An agency shall grant or deny a petition under this 
     paragraph within 30 days of its receipt of the petition.

     No later than 45 days before any hearing held under this 
     subsection or sections 556 and 557, the agency shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a notice specifying the proposed rule 
     to be considered at such hearing, the issues to be considered 
     at the hearing, and the time and place for such hearing, 
     except that such notice may be issued not later than 15 days 
     before a hearing held under subsection (d)(4)(B).
       ``(f) Final Rules.--(1) The agency shall adopt a rule only 
     following consultation with the Administrator of the Office 
     of Information and Regulatory Affairs to facilitate 
     compliance with applicable rule making requirements.
       ``(2) The agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of 
     the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, 
     economic, and other evidence and information concerning the 
     need for, consequences of, and alternatives to the rule.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the agency 
     shall adopt the least costly rule considered during the rule 
     making (including all costs to be considered under subsection 
     (b)(6)) that meets relevant statutory objectives.
       ``(B) The agency may adopt a rule that is more costly than 
     the least costly alternative that would achieve the relevant 
     statutory objectives only if the additional benefits of the 
     more costly rule justify its additional costs and only if the 
     agency explains its reason for doing so based on interests of 
     public health, safety or welfare that are clearly within the 
     scope of the statutory provision authorizing the rule.
       ``(4) When it adopts a final rule, the agency shall publish 
     a notice of final rule making. The notice shall include--
       ``(A) a concise, general statement of the rule's basis and 
     purpose;
       ``(B) the agency's reasoned final determination of need for 
     a rule to address the problem the agency seeks to address 
     with the rule, including a statement of whether a rule is 
     required by statute and a summary of any final risk 
     assessment or regulatory impact analysis prepared by the 
     agency;
       ``(C) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     benefits of the rule meet the relevant statutory objectives 
     and justify the rule's costs (including all costs to be 
     considered under subsection (b)(6));
       ``(D) the agency's reasoned final determination not to 
     adopt any of the alternatives to the proposed rule considered 
     by the agency during the rule making, including--
       ``(i) the agency's reasoned final determination that no 
     alternative considered achieved the relevant statutory 
     objectives with lower costs (including all costs to be 
     considered under subsection (b)(6)) than the rule; or
       ``(ii) the agency's reasoned determination that its 
     adoption of a more costly rule complies with subsection 
     (f)(3)(B);
       ``(E) the agency's reasoned final determination--
       ``(i) that existing rules have not created or contributed 
     to the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule; or
       ``(ii) that existing rules have created or contributed to 
     the problem the agency seeks to address with the rule, and, 
     if so--
       ``(I) why amendment or rescission of such existing rules is 
     not alone sufficient to respond to the problem; and
       ``(II) whether and how the agency intends to amend or 
     rescind the existing rule separate from adoption of the rule;
       ``(F) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     evidence and other information upon which the agency bases 
     the rule complies with the Information Quality Act;
       ``(G) the agency's reasoned final determination that the 
     rule meets the objectives that the agency identified in 
     subsection (d)(1)(E)(iii) or that other objectives are more 
     appropriate in light of the full administrative record and 
     the rule meets those objectives;
       ``(H) the agency's reasoned final determination that it did 
     not deviate from the metrics the agency included in 
     subsection (d)(1)(E)(iii) or that other metrics are more 
     appropriate in light of the full administrative record and 
     the agency did not deviate from those metrics;
       ``(I)(i) for any major rule, high-impact rule, or negative-
     impact on jobs and wages rule, the agency's plan for review 
     of the rule no less than every ten years to determine 
     whether, based upon evidence, there remains a need for the 
     rule, whether the rule is in fact achieving statutory 
     objectives, whether the rule's benefits continue to justify 
     its costs, and whether the rule can be modified or rescinded 
     to reduce costs while continuing to achieve statutory 
     objectives; and
       ``(ii) review of a rule under a plan required by clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph shall take into account the factors and 
     criteria set forth in subsections (b) through (f) of section 
     553 of this title; and
       ``(J) for any negative-impact on jobs and wages rule, a 
     statement that the head of the agency that made the rule 
     approved the rule knowing about the findings and 
     determination of the agency or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that qualified 
     the rule as a negative impact on jobs and wages rule.

     All information considered by the agency in connection with 
     its adoption of the rule, and, at the discretion of the 
     President or the Administrator of the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs, information provided by that Office 
     in consultations with the agency, shall be placed in the 
     docket for the rule and made accessible to the public for the 
     public's use no later than when the rule is adopted.
       ``(g) Exceptions From Notice and Hearing Requirements.--(1) 
     Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, the 
     following do not apply to interpretive rules, general 
     statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, 
     procedure, or practice:
       ``(A) Subsections (c) through (e).
       ``(B) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (f).
       ``(C) Subparagraphs (B) through (H) of subsection (f)(4).
       ``(2)(A) When the agency for good cause, based upon 
     evidence, finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 
     statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that 
     compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or requirements 
     to render final determinations under

[[Page 613]]

     subsection (f) of this section before the issuance of an 
     interim rule is impracticable or contrary to the public 
     interest, including interests of national security, such 
     subsections or requirements to render final determinations 
     shall not apply to the agency's adoption of an interim rule.
       ``(B) If, following compliance with subparagraph (A) of 
     this paragraph, the agency adopts an interim rule, it shall 
     commence proceedings that comply fully with subsections (d) 
     through (f) of this section immediately upon publication of 
     the interim rule, shall treat the publication of the interim 
     rule as publication of a notice of proposed rule making and 
     shall not be required to issue supplemental notice other than 
     to complete full compliance with subsection (d). No less than 
     270 days from publication of the interim rule (or 18 months 
     in the case of a major rule or high-impact rule), the agency 
     shall complete rule making under subsections (d) through (f) 
     of this subsection and take final action to adopt a final 
     rule or rescind the interim rule. If the agency fails to take 
     timely final action, the interim rule will cease to have the 
     effect of law.
       ``(C) Other than in cases involving interests of national 
     security, upon the agency's publication of an interim rule 
     without compliance with subsection (c), (d), or (e) or 
     requirements to render final determinations under subsection 
     (f) of this section, an interested party may seek immediate 
     judicial review under chapter 7 of this title of the agency's 
     determination to adopt such interim rule. The record on such 
     review shall include all documents and information considered 
     by the agency and any additional information presented by a 
     party that the court determines necessary to consider to 
     assure justice.
       ``(3) When the agency for good cause finds (and 
     incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
     therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public 
     procedure thereon are unnecessary, including because agency 
     rule making is undertaken only to correct a de minimis 
     technical or clerical error in a previously issued rule or 
     for other noncontroversial purposes, the agency may publish a 
     rule without compliance with subsection (c), (d), (e), or 
     (f)(1)-(3) and (f)(4)(B)-(F). If the agency receives 
     significant adverse comment within 60 days after publication 
     of the rule, it shall treat the notice of the rule as a 
     notice of proposed rule making and complete rule making in 
     compliance with subsections (d) and (f).
       ``(h) Additional Requirements for Hearings.--When a hearing 
     is required under subsection (e) or is otherwise required by 
     statute or at the agency's discretion before adoption of a 
     rule, the agency shall comply with the requirements of 
     sections 556 and 557 in addition to the requirements of 
     subsection (f) in adopting the rule and in providing notice 
     of the rule's adoption.
       ``(i) Date of Publication of Rule.--The required 
     publication or service of a substantive final or interim rule 
     shall be made not less than 30 days before the effective date 
     of the rule, except--
       ``(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an 
     exemption or relieves a restriction;
       ``(2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or
       ``(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
     found and published with the rule.
       ``(j) Right To Petition.--Each agency shall give an 
     interested person the right to petition for the issuance, 
     amendment, or repeal of a rule.
       ``(k) Rule Making Guidelines.--(1)(A) The Administrator of 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall 
     establish guidelines for the assessment, including 
     quantitative and qualitative assessment, of the costs and 
     benefits of proposed and final rules and other economic 
     issues or issues related to risk that are relevant to rule 
     making under this title. The rigor of cost-benefit analysis 
     required by such guidelines shall be commensurate, in the 
     Administrator's determination, with the economic impact of 
     the rule.
       ``(B) To ensure that agencies use the best available 
     techniques to quantify and evaluate anticipated present and 
     future benefits, costs, other economic issues, and risks as 
     accurately as possible, the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall regularly update 
     guidelines established under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall also issue guidelines to promote 
     coordination, simplification and harmonization of agency 
     rules during the rule making process and otherwise. Such 
     guidelines shall assure that each agency avoids regulations 
     that are inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative 
     of, its other regulations and those of other Federal agencies 
     and drafts its regulations to be simple and easy to 
     understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
     uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.
       ``(3) To ensure consistency in Federal rule making, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs shall--
       ``(A) issue guidelines and otherwise take action to ensure 
     that rule makings conducted in whole or in part under 
     procedures specified in provisions of law other than those of 
     subchapter II of this title conform to the fullest extent 
     allowed by law with the procedures set forth in section 553 
     of this title; and
       ``(B) issue guidelines for the conduct of hearings under 
     subsections 553(d)(4) and 553(e) of this section, including 
     to assure a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination. 
     Each agency shall adopt regulations for the conduct of 
     hearings consistent with the guidelines issued under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(4) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall issue guidelines pursuant to the 
     Information Quality Act to apply in rule making proceedings 
     under sections 553, 556, and 557 of this title. In all cases, 
     such guidelines, and the Administrator's specific 
     determinations regarding agency compliance with such 
     guidelines, shall be entitled to judicial deference.
       ``(l) Inclusion in the Record of Certain Documents and 
     Information.--The agency shall include in the record for a 
     rule making, and shall make available by electronic means and 
     otherwise, all documents and information prepared or 
     considered by the agency during the proceeding, including, at 
     the discretion of the President or the Administrator of the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, documents and 
     information communicated by that Office during consultation 
     with the Agency.
       ``(m) Monetary Policy Exemption.--Nothing in subsection 
     (b)(6), subparagraphs (F) and (G) of subsection (d)(1), 
     subsection (e), subsection (f)(3), and subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D) of subsection (f)(5) shall apply to rule makings that 
     concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal 
     Open Market Committee.''.

     SEC. 104. AGENCY GUIDANCE; PROCEDURES TO ISSUE MAJOR 
                   GUIDANCE; PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE 
                   GUIDELINES FOR ISSUANCE OF GUIDANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major 
       guidance; authority to issue guidelines for issuance of 
       guidance

       ``(a) Before issuing any major guidance, or guidance that 
     involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of 
     statutory mandates, an agency shall--
       ``(1) make and document a reasoned determination that--
       ``(A) assures that such guidance is understandable and 
     complies with relevant statutory objectives and regulatory 
     provisions (including any statutory deadlines for agency 
     action);
       ``(B) summarizes the evidence and data on which the agency 
     will base the guidance;
       ``(C) identifies the costs and benefits (including all 
     costs to be considered during a rule making under section 
     553(b) of this title) of conduct conforming to such guidance 
     and assures that such benefits justify such costs; and
       ``(D) describes alternatives to such guidance and their 
     costs and benefits (including all costs to be considered 
     during a rule making under section 553(b) of this title) and 
     explains why the agency rejected those alternatives; and
       ``(2) confer with the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs on the issuance of such 
     guidance to assure that the guidance is reasonable, 
     understandable, consistent with relevant statutory and 
     regulatory provisions and requirements or practices of other 
     agencies, does not produce costs that are unjustified by the 
     guidance's benefits, and is otherwise appropriate.

     Upon issuing major guidance, or guidance that involves a 
     novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory 
     mandates, the agency shall publish the documentation required 
     by subparagraph (1) by electronic means and otherwise.
       ``(b) Agency guidance--
       ``(1) is not legally binding and may not be relied upon by 
     an agency as legal grounds for agency action;
       ``(2) shall state in a plain, prominent and permanent 
     manner that it is not legally binding; and
       ``(3) shall, at the time it is issued or upon request, be 
     made available by the issuing agency to interested persons 
     and the public by electronic means and otherwise.

     Agencies shall avoid the issuance of guidance that is 
     inconsistent or incompatible with, or duplicative of, the 
     agency's governing statutes or regulations, with the goal of 
     minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation 
     arising from such uncertainty.
       ``(c) The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs shall have authority to issue guidelines 
     for use by the agencies in the issuance of major guidance and 
     other guidance. Such guidelines shall assure that each agency 
     avoids issuing guidance documents that are inconsistent or 
     incompatible with, or duplicative of, the law, its other 
     regulations, or the regulations of other Federal agencies and 
     drafts its guidance documents to be simple and easy to 
     understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
     uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United

[[Page 614]]

     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 553 the following new item:

``553a. Agency guidance; procedures to issue major guidance; authority 
              to issue guidelines for issuance of guidance.''.

     SEC. 105. HEARINGS; PRESIDING EMPLOYEES; POWERS AND DUTIES; 
                   BURDEN OF PROOF; EVIDENCE; RECORD AS BASIS OF 
                   DECISION.

       Section 556 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e)(1) The transcript of testimony and exhibits, together 
     with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, 
     constitutes the exclusive record for decision in accordance 
     with section 557 and shall be made available to the parties 
     and the public by electronic means and, upon payment of 
     lawfully prescribed costs, otherwise. When an agency decision 
     rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in 
     the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely 
     request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, in 
     a proceeding held under this section pursuant to section 
     553(d)(4) or 553(e), the record for decision shall also 
     include any information that is part of the record of 
     proceedings under section 553.
       ``(f) When an agency conducts rule making under this 
     section and section 557 directly after concluding proceedings 
     upon an advance notice of proposed rule making under section 
     553(c), the matters to be considered and determinations to be 
     made shall include, among other relevant matters and 
     determinations, the matters and determinations described in 
     subsections (b) and (f) of section 553.
       ``(g) Upon receipt of a petition for a hearing under this 
     section, the agency shall grant the petition in the case of 
     any major rule, unless the agency reasonably determines that 
     a hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or 
     would, in light of the need for agency action, unreasonably 
     delay completion of the rule making. The agency shall publish 
     its decision to grant or deny the petition when it renders 
     the decision, including an explanation of the grounds for 
     decision. The information contained in the petition shall in 
     all cases be included in the administrative record. This 
     subsection shall not apply to rule makings that concern 
     monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open 
     Market Committee.''.

     SEC. 106. ACTIONS REVIEWABLE.

       Section 704 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Agency action made'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Agency action made''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Denial by an 
     agency of a correction request or, where administrative 
     appeal is provided for, denial of an appeal, under an 
     administrative mechanism described in subsection (b)(2)(B) of 
     the Information Quality Act, or the failure of an agency 
     within 90 days to grant or deny such request or appeal, shall 
     be final action for purposes of this section.
       ``(b) Other than in cases involving interests of national 
     security, notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, 
     upon the agency's publication of an interim rule without 
     compliance with section 553(c), (d), or (e) or requirements 
     to render final determinations under subsection (f) of 
     section 553, an interested party may seek immediate judicial 
     review under this chapter of the agency's determination to 
     adopt such rule on an interim basis. Review shall be limited 
     to whether the agency abused its discretion to adopt the 
     interim rule without compliance with section 553(c), (d), or 
     (e) or without rendering final determinations under 
     subsection (f) of section 553.''.

     SEC. 107. SCOPE OF REVIEW.

       Section 706 of title 5, United States Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting 
     ``(a) To the extent necessary'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A) of subsection (b) (as designated by 
     section 202 of this Act), by inserting after ``in accordance 
     with law'' the following: ``(including the Information 
     Quality Act)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) The court shall not defer to the agency's--
       ``(1) determination of the costs and benefits or other 
     economic or risk assessment of the action, if the agency 
     failed to conform to guidelines on such determinations and 
     assessments established by the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs under section 553(k);
       ``(2) determinations made in the adoption of an interim 
     rule; or
       ``(3) guidance.
       ``(d) The court shall review agency denials of petitions 
     under section 553(e)(6) or any other petition for a hearing 
     under sections 556 and 557 for abuse of agency discretion.''.

     SEC. 108. ADDED DEFINITION.

       Section 701(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end, 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) `substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence 
     as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
     conclusion in light of the record considered as a whole, 
     taking into account whatever in the record fairly detracts 
     from the weight of the evidence relied upon by the agency to 
     support its decision.''.

     SEC. 109. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title to--
       (1) sections 553, 556, and 704 of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (2) subsection (b) of section 701 of such title;
       (3) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 706(c) of such title; 
     and
       (4) subsection (d) of section 706 of such title,

     shall not apply to any rule makings pending or completed on 
     the date of enactment of this title.

             TITLE II--SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Separation of Powers 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 202. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY 
                   INTERPRETATIONS.

       Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     this Act, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) (as designated by section 107 of this 
     Act)--
       (A) by striking ``decide all relevant questions of law, 
     interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``of the terms of an agency action'' 
     the following ``and decide de novo all relevant questions of 
     law, including the interpretation of constitutional and 
     statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection 
     shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency 
     action authorized under any provision of law. No law may 
     exempt any such civil action from the application of this 
     section except by specific reference to this section''; and
       (2) by striking ``The reviewing court shall--'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) The reviewing court shall--''.

   TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACT

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act''.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE 
                   REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Rule.--The term `rule' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 551(4) of this title, except that such term 
     does not include--
       ``(A) a rule pertaining to the protection of the rights of 
     and benefits for veterans or part 232 of title 32 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations (as in effect on July 1, 2014) or any 
     successor provisions thereto; or
       ``(B) a rule of particular (and not general) applicability 
     relating to rates, wages, corporate or financial structures 
     or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, 
     services, or allowances therefor or to valuations, costs or 
     accounting, or practices relating to such rates, wages, 
     structures, prices, appliances, services, or allowances.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Rules With Indirect Effects.--Section 601 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Economic impact.--The term `economic impact' means, 
     with respect to a proposed or final rule--
       ``(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such 
     rule; and
       ``(B) any indirect economic effect (including compliance 
     costs and effects on revenue) on small entities which is 
     reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without 
     regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated 
     by the rule).''.
       (c) Inclusion of Rules With Beneficial Effects.--
       (1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection 
     (c) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the first sentence and inserting ``Each initial 
     regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a detailed 
     description of alternatives to the proposed rule which 
     minimize any adverse significant economic impact or maximize 
     any beneficial significant economic impact on small 
     entities.''.
       (2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--The first 
     paragraph (6) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``minimize the significant 
     economic impact'' and inserting ``minimize the adverse 
     significant economic impact or maximize the beneficial 
     significant economic impact''.
       (d) Inclusion of Rules Affecting Tribal Organizations.--
     Paragraph (5) of section 601 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``and tribal organizations (as 
     defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))),'' after 
     ``special districts,''.
       (e) Inclusion of Land Management Plans and Formal 
     Rulemaking.--
       (1) Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 603 of title 5,

[[Page 615]]

     United States Code, is amended in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rule,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or publishes a revision or amendment to 
     a land management plan,'' after ``United States,''.
       (2) Final regulatory flexibility analysis.--Subsection (a) 
     of section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended in 
     the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``or'' after ``proposed rulemaking,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or adopts a revision or amendment to a 
     land management plan,'' after ``section 603(a),''.
       (3) Land management plan defined.--Section 601 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Land management plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `land management plan' means--
       ``(i) any plan developed by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
     Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604); and
       ``(ii) any plan developed by the Secretary of the Interior 
     under section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).
       ``(B) Revision.--The term `revision' means any change to a 
     land management plan which--
       ``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(5) of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
     1604(f)(5)); or
       ``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-6 of title 43, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation).
       ``(C) Amendment.--The term `amendment' means any change to 
     a land management plan which--
       ``(i) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), is made under section 6(f)(4) of the Forest and 
     Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
     1604(f)(4)) and with respect to which the Secretary of 
     Agriculture prepares a statement described in section 
     102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)); or
       ``(ii) in the case of a plan described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), is made under section 1610.5-5 of title 43, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) and with 
     respect to which the Secretary of the Interior prepares a 
     statement described in section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).''.
       (f) Inclusion of Certain Interpretive Rules Involving the 
     Internal Revenue Laws.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 603 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``or a recordkeeping requirement, and 
     without regard to whether such requirement is imposed by 
     statute or regulation.''.
       (2) Collection of information.--Paragraph (7) of section 
     601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(7) Collection of information.--The term `collection of 
     information' has the meaning given such term in section 
     3502(3) of title 44.''.
       (3) Recordkeeping requirement.--Paragraph (8) of section 
     601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(8) Recordkeeping requirement.--The term `recordkeeping 
     requirement' has the meaning given such term in section 
     3502(13) of title 44.''.
       (g) Definition of Small Organization.--Paragraph (4) of 
     section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) Small organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `small organization' means any 
     not-for-profit enterprise which, as of the issuance of the 
     notice of proposed rulemaking--
       ``(i) in the case of an enterprise which is described by a 
     classification code of the North American Industrial 
     Classification System, does not exceed the size standard 
     established by the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for small business concerns described by 
     such classification code; and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other enterprise, has a net worth 
     that does not exceed $7 million and has not more than 500 
     employees.
       ``(B) Local labor organizations.--In the case of any local 
     labor organization, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without 
     regard to any national or international organization of which 
     such local labor organization is a part.
       ``(C) Agency definitions.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
     not apply to the extent that an agency, after consultation 
     with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration and after opportunity for public comment, 
     establishes one or more definitions for such term which are 
     appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
     such definitions in the Federal Register.''.

     SEC. 303. EXPANSION OF REPORT OF REGULATORY AGENDA.

       Section 602 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, and'' at the end and 
     inserting ``;'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) a brief description of the sector of the North 
     American Industrial Classification System that is primarily 
     affected by any rule which the agency expects to propose or 
     promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic 
     impact on a substantial number of small entities; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), to read as follows:
       ``(c) Each agency shall prominently display a plain 
     language summary of the information contained in the 
     regulatory flexibility agenda published under subsection (a) 
     on its website within 3 days of its publication in the 
     Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy of the Small 
     Business Administration shall compile and prominently display 
     a plain language summary of the regulatory agendas referenced 
     in subsection (a) for each agency on its website within 3 
     days of their publication in the Federal Register.''.

     SEC. 304. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.

       (a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Subsection 
     (b) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required 
     under this section shall contain a detailed statement--
       ``(1) describing the reasons why action by the agency is 
     being considered;
       ``(2) describing the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
     the proposed rule;
       ``(3) estimating the number and type of small entities to 
     which the proposed rule will apply;
       ``(4) describing the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
     and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, 
     including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
     will be subject to the requirement and the type of 
     professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
     and record;
       ``(5) describing all relevant Federal rules which may 
     duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or 
     the reasons why such a description could not be provided;
       ``(6) estimating the additional cumulative economic impact 
     of the proposed rule on small entities beyond that already 
     imposed on the class of small entities by the agency or why 
     such an estimate is not available;
       ``(7) describing any disproportionate economic impact on 
     small entities or a specific class of small entities; and
       ``(8) describing any impairment of the ability of small 
     entities to have access to credit.''.
       (b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--Section 604(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an explanation'' and 
     inserting ``a detailed explanation'';
       (B) in each of paragraphs (4), (5), and the first paragraph 
     (6), by inserting ``detailed'' before ``description'';
       (C) in the first paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' at 
     the end;
       (D) in the second paragraph (6), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and'';
       (E) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (7); and
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) a detailed description of any disproportionate 
     economic impact on small entities or a specific class of 
     small entities.''.
       (2) Inclusion of response to comments on certification of 
     proposed rule.--Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(or 
     certification of the proposed rule under section 605(b))'' 
     after ``initial regulatory flexibility analysis''.
       (3) Publication of analysis on website.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 604 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) The agency shall make copies of the final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis available to the public, including 
     placement of the entire analysis on the agency's website, and 
     shall publish in the Federal Register the final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis, or a summary thereof which includes the 
     telephone number, mailing address, and link to the website 
     where the complete analysis may be obtained.''.
       (c) Cross-References to Other Analyses.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) A Federal agency shall be treated as satisfying any 
     requirement regarding the content of an agenda or regulatory 
     flexibility analysis under section 602, 603, or 604, if such 
     agency provides in such agenda or analysis a cross-reference 
     to the specific portion of another agenda or analysis which 
     is required by any other law and which satisfies such 
     requirement.''.
       (d) Certifications.--Subsection (b) of section 605 of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``detailed'' before ``statement'' the 
     first place it appears; and
       (2) by inserting ``and legal'' after ``factual''.
       (e) Quantification Requirements.--Section 607 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 616]]



     ``Sec. 607. Quantification requirements

       ``In complying with sections 603 and 604, an agency shall 
     provide--
       ``(1) a quantifiable or numerical description of the 
     effects of the proposed or final rule and alternatives to the 
     proposed or final rule; or
       ``(2) a more general descriptive statement and a detailed 
     statement explaining why quantification is not practicable or 
     reliable.''.

     SEC. 305. REPEAL OF WAIVER AND DELAY AUTHORITY; ADDITIONAL 
                   POWERS OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ADVOCACY.

       (a) In General.--Section 608 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy

       ``(a)(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
     the Small Business Administration shall, after opportunity 
     for notice and comment under section 553, issue rules 
     governing agency compliance with this chapter. The Chief 
     Counsel may modify or amend such rules after notice and 
     comment under section 553. This chapter (other than this 
     subsection) shall not apply with respect to the issuance, 
     modification, and amendment of rules under this paragraph.
       ``(2) An agency shall not issue rules which supplement the 
     rules issued under subsection (a) unless such agency has 
     first consulted with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to ensure 
     that such supplemental rules comply with this chapter and the 
     rules issued under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Notwithstanding any other law, the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may intervene 
     in any agency adjudication (unless such agency is authorized 
     to impose a fine or penalty under such adjudication), and may 
     inform the agency of the impact that any decision on the 
     record may have on small entities. The Chief Counsel shall 
     not initiate an appeal with respect to any adjudication in 
     which the Chief Counsel intervenes under this subsection.
       ``(c) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy may file comments in 
     response to any agency notice requesting comment, regardless 
     of whether the agency is required to file a general notice of 
     proposed rulemaking under section 553.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 611(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``608(b),''.
       (2) Section 611(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``608(b),''.
       (3) Section 611(a)(3) of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (B) by striking ``(3)(A) A small entity'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) A small entity''.

     SEC. 306. PROCEDURES FOR GATHERING COMMENTS.

       Section 609 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and all that follows through the end 
     of the section and inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1) Prior to publication of any proposed rule 
     described in subsection (e), an agency making such rule shall 
     notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration and provide the Chief Counsel with--
       ``(A) all materials prepared or utilized by the agency in 
     making the proposed rule, including the draft of the proposed 
     rule; and
       ``(B) information on the potential adverse and beneficial 
     economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
     the type of small entities that might be affected.
       ``(2) An agency shall not be required under paragraph (1) 
     to provide the exact language of any draft if the rule--
       ``(A) relates to the internal revenue laws of the United 
     States; or
       ``(B) is proposed by an independent regulatory agency (as 
     defined in section 3502(5) of title 44).
       ``(c) Not later than 15 days after the receipt of such 
     materials and information under subsection (b), the Chief 
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
     shall--
       ``(1) identify small entities or representatives of small 
     entities or a combination of both for the purpose of 
     obtaining advice, input, and recommendations from those 
     persons about the potential economic impacts of the proposed 
     rule and the compliance of the agency with section 603; and
       ``(2) convene a review panel consisting of an employee from 
     the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, 
     an employee from the agency making the rule, and in the case 
     of an agency other than an independent regulatory agency (as 
     defined in section 3502(5) of title 44), an employee from the 
     Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget to review the materials and information 
     provided to the Chief Counsel under subsection (b).
       ``(d)(1) Not later than 60 days after the review panel 
     described in subsection (c)(2) is convened, the Chief Counsel 
     for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration shall, 
     after consultation with the members of such panel, submit a 
     report to the agency and, in the case of an agency other than 
     an independent regulatory agency (as defined in section 
     3502(5) of title 44), the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(2) Such report shall include an assessment of the 
     economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, 
     including an assessment of the proposed rule's impact on the 
     cost that small entities pay for energy, an assessment of the 
     proposed rule's impact on startup costs for small entities, 
     and a discussion of any alternatives that will minimize 
     adverse significant economic impacts or maximize beneficial 
     significant economic impacts on small entities.
       ``(3) Such report shall become part of the rulemaking 
     record. In the publication of the proposed rule, the agency 
     shall explain what actions, if any, the agency took in 
     response to such report.
       ``(e) A proposed rule is described by this subsection if 
     the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of 
     the agency (or the delegatee of the head of the agency), or 
     an independent regulatory agency determines that the proposed 
     rule is likely to result in--
       ``(1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
     more;
       ``(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
     individual industries, Federal, State, or local governments, 
     tribal organizations, or geographic regions;
       ``(3) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 
     ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with 
     foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
       ``(4) a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
     of small entities.
       ``(f) Upon application by the agency, the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy of the Small Business Administration may waive the 
     requirements of subsections (b) through (e) if the Chief 
     Counsel determines that compliance with the requirements of 
     such subsections are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 
     to the public interest.
       ``(g) A small entity or a representative of a small entity 
     may submit a request that the agency provide a copy of the 
     report prepared under subsection (d) and all materials and 
     information provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
     Small Business Administration under subsection (b). The 
     agency receiving such request shall provide the report, 
     materials and information to the requesting small entity or 
     representative of a small entity not later than 10 business 
     days after receiving such request, except that the agency 
     shall not disclose any information that is prohibited from 
     disclosure to the public pursuant to section 552(b) of this 
     title.''.

     SEC. 307. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.

       Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules

       ``(a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
     section, each agency shall publish in the Federal Register 
     and place on its website a plan for the periodic review of 
     rules issued by the agency which the head of the agency 
     determines have a significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities. Such determination 
     shall be made without regard to whether the agency performed 
     an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the review 
     shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued 
     without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent 
     with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to 
     minimize any adverse significant economic impacts or maximize 
     any beneficial significant economic impacts on a substantial 
     number of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the 
     agency at any time by publishing the revision in the Federal 
     Register and subsequently placing the amended plan on the 
     agency's website.
       ``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such 
     agency rules existing on the date of the enactment of this 
     section within 10 years of the date of publication of the 
     plan in the Federal Register and for review of rules adopted 
     after the date of enactment of this section within 10 years 
     after the publication of the final rule in the Federal 
     Register. If the head of the agency determines that 
     completion of the review of existing rules is not feasible by 
     the established date, the head of the agency shall so certify 
     in a statement published in the Federal Register and may 
     extend the review for not longer than 2 years after 
     publication of notice of extension in the Federal Register. 
     Such certification and notice shall be sent to the Chief 
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and 
     the Congress.
       ``(c) The plan shall include a section that details how an 
     agency will conduct outreach to and meaningfully include 
     small businesses (including small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by women, small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by veterans, and small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals (as such terms are defined in the Small Business 
     Act)) for the purposes of carrying out this section. The 
     agency shall include in this section a plan for how the 
     agency will contact small businesses and gather their input 
     on existing agency rules.

[[Page 617]]

       ``(d) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding 
     the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the 
     Congress, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
     Business Administration, and, in the case of agencies other 
     than independent regulatory agencies (as defined in section 
     3502(5) of title 44) to the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget. Such report shall include the 
     identification of any rule with respect to which the head of 
     the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or 
     (6) of subsection (e) and a detailed explanation of the 
     reasons for such determination.
       ``(e) In reviewing a rule pursuant to subsections (a) 
     through (d), the agency shall amend or rescind the rule to 
     minimize any adverse significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities or disproportionate 
     economic impact on a specific class of small entities, or 
     maximize any beneficial significant economic impact of the 
     rule on a substantial number of small entities to the 
     greatest extent possible, consistent with the stated 
     objectives of applicable statutes. In amending or rescinding 
     the rule, the agency shall consider the following factors:
       ``(1) The continued need for the rule.
       ``(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from 
     small entities concerning the rule.
       ``(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 
     the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration.
       ``(4) The complexity of the rule.
       ``(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or 
     conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of 
     the agency determines it to be infeasible, State, 
     territorial, and local rules.
       ``(6) The contribution of the rule to the cumulative 
     economic impact of all Federal rules on the class of small 
     entities affected by the rule, unless the head of the agency 
     determines that such calculations cannot be made and reports 
     that determination in the annual report required under 
     subsection (d).
       ``(7) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated 
     or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or 
     other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
       ``(f) Each year, each agency shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and on its website a list of rules to be reviewed 
     pursuant to such plan. The agency shall include in the 
     publication a solicitation of public comments on any further 
     inclusions or exclusions of rules from the list, and shall 
     respond to such comments. Such publication shall include a 
     brief description of the rule, the reason why the agency 
     determined that it has a significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities (without regard to 
     whether it had prepared a final regulatory flexibility 
     analysis for the rule), and request comments from the public, 
     the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 
     concerning the enforcement of the rule.''.

     SEC. 308. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS 
                   OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT AVAILABLE 
                   AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 611(a) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``final agency 
     action'' and inserting ``such rule''.
       (b) Jurisdiction.--Paragraph (2) of such section is amended 
     by inserting ``(or which would have such jurisdiction if 
     publication of the final rule constituted final agency 
     action)'' after ``provision of law,''.
       (c) Time for Bringing Action.--Paragraph (3) of such 
     section is amended--
       (1) by striking ``final agency action'' and inserting 
     ``publication of the final rule''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, in the case of a rule for which the 
     date of final agency action is the same date as the 
     publication of the final rule,'' after ``except that''.
       (d) Intervention by Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--Subsection 
     (b) of section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting before the first period ``or agency compliance 
     with section 601, 603, 604, 605(b), 609, or 610''.

     SEC. 309. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS OVER RULES 
                   IMPLEMENTING THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 2342 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) all final rules under section 608(a) of title 5.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section 2341 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration, when the final rule is under section 608(a) 
     of title 5.''.
       (c) Authorization To Intervene and Comment on Agency 
     Compliance With Administrative Procedure.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 612 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``chapter 5, and chapter 7,'' after ``this 
     chapter,''.

     SEC. 310. ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL OF SMALL BUSINESS 
                   CONCERN SIZE STANDARDS BY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR 
                   ADVOCACY.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 3(a)(2) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(A)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to the criteria specified in 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the Administrator may specify detailed definitions or 
     standards by which a business concern may be determined to be 
     a small business concern for purposes of this Act or the 
     Small Business Investment Act of 1958; and
       ``(ii) the Chief Counsel for Advocacy may specify such 
     definitions or standards for purposes of any other Act.''.
       (b) Approval by Chief Counsel.--Clause (iii) of section 
     3(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(a)(2)(C)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iii) except in the case of a size standard prescribed by 
     the Administrator, is approved by the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy.''.
       (c) Industry Variation.--Paragraph (3) of section 3(a) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or Chief Counsel for Advocacy, as 
     appropriate'' before ``shall ensure''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or Chief Counsel for Advocacy'' before 
     the period at the end.
       (d) Judicial Review of Size Standards Approved by Chief 
     Counsel.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) Judicial review of standards approved by chief 
     counsel.--In the case of an action for judicial review of a 
     rule which includes a definition or standard approved by the 
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy under this subsection, the party 
     seeking such review shall be entitled to join the Chief 
     Counsel as a party in such action.''.

     SEC. 311. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 601 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period; and
       (B) by striking ``(1) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Agency.--The term'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period; and
       (B) by striking ``(3) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Small business.--The term'';
       (3) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period; and
       (B) by striking ``(5) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(5) Small governmental jurisdiction.--The term''; and
       (4) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
       (B) by striking ``(6) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(6) Small entity.--The term''.
       (b) Incorporations by Reference and Certifications.--The 
     heading of section 605 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 605. Incorporations by reference and certifications''.

       (c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 6 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking the item relating to section 605 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``605. Incorporations by reference and certifications.''.

       (2) By striking the item relating to section 607 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``607. Quantification requirements.''.

       (3) By striking the item relating to section 608 and 
     inserting the following:

``608. Additional powers of Chief Counsel for Advocacy.''.

       (d) Other Clerical Amendments to Chapter 6.--Chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended in section 603(d)--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking ``(1) For a covered agency,'' and inserting 
     ``For a covered agency,'';
       (3) by striking ``(A) any'' and inserting ``(1) any'';
       (4) by striking ``(B) any'' and inserting ``(2) any''; and
       (5) by striking ``(C) advice'' and inserting ``(3) 
     advice''.

     SEC. 312. AGENCY PREPARATION OF GUIDES.

       Section 212(a)(5) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
     Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in 
     its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter 
     of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure 
     that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language 
     likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies 
     may prepare

[[Page 618]]

     separate guides covering groups or classes of similarly 
     affected small entities and may cooperate with associations 
     of small entities to distribute such guides. In developing 
     guides, agencies shall solicit input from affected small 
     entities or associations of affected small entities. An 
     agency may prepare guides and apply this section with respect 
     to a rule or a group of related rules.''.

     SEC. 313. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     title, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     complete and publish a study that examines whether the Chief 
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has 
     the capacity and resources to carry out the duties of the 
     Chief Counsel under this title and the amendments made by 
     this title.

 TITLE IV--REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS 
                                  ACT

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Require Evaluation before 
     Implementing Executive Wishlists Act'' or as the ``REVIEW 
     Act''.

     SEC. 402. RELIEF PENDING REVIEW.

       Section 705 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``When'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--When''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) High-Impact Rules.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Administrator' means the Administrator of 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the 
     Office of Management and Budget; and
       ``(B) the term `high-impact rule' means any rule that the 
     Administrator determines may impose an annual cost on the 
     economy of not less than $1,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Identification.--A final rule may not be published or 
     take effect until the agency making the rule submits the rule 
     to the Administrator and the Administrator makes a 
     determination as to whether the rule is a high-impact rule, 
     which shall be published by the agency with the final rule.
       ``(3) Relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an agency shall postpone the effective date of a high-impact 
     rule of the agency until the final disposition of all actions 
     seeking judicial review of the rule.
       ``(B) Failure to timely seek judicial review.--
     Notwithstanding section 553(i), if no person seeks judicial 
     review of a high-impact rule--
       ``(i) during any period explicitly provided for judicial 
     review under the statute authorizing the making of the rule; 
     or
       ``(ii) if no such period is explicitly provided for, during 
     the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the high-
     impact rule is published in the Federal Register,

     the high-impact rule may take effect as early as the date on 
     which the applicable period ends.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to impose any limitation under law on any court 
     against the issuance of any order enjoining the 
     implementation of any rule.''.

         TITLE V--ALL ECONOMIC REGULATIONS ARE TRANSPARENT ACT

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``All Economic Regulations 
     are Transparent Act'' or the ``ALERT Act''.

     SEC. 502. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                   PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES.

       (a) Amendment.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 6, the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 6A--OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS PUBLICATION 
                    OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RULES

``Sec. 651. Agency monthly submission to office of information and 
              regulatory affairs.
``Sec. 652. Office of information and regulatory affairs publications.
``Sec. 653. Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific monthly 
              publication.
``Sec. 654. Definitions.

     ``SEC. 651. AGENCY MONTHLY SUBMISSION TO OFFICE OF 
                   INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.

       ``On a monthly basis, the head of each agency shall submit 
     to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs (referred to in this chapter as the 
     `Administrator'), in such a manner as the Administrator may 
     reasonably require, the following information:
       ``(1) For each rule that the agency expects to propose or 
     finalize during the 12-month period following the month 
     covered by the monthly submission:
       ``(A) A summary of the nature of the rule, including the 
     regulation identifier number and the docket number for the 
     rule.
       ``(B) The objectives of and legal basis for the issuance of 
     the rule, including--
       ``(i) any statutory or judicial deadline; and
       ``(ii) whether the legal basis restricts or precludes the 
     agency from conducting an analysis of the costs or benefits 
     of the rule during the rule making, and if not, whether the 
     agency plans to conduct an analysis of the costs or benefits 
     of the rule during the rule making.
       ``(C) Whether the agency plans to claim an exemption from 
     the requirements of section 553 pursuant to section 
     553(g)(2)(A).
       ``(D) The stage of the rule making as of the date of 
     submission.
       ``(E) Whether the rule is subject to review under section 
     610.
       ``(2) For any rule for which the agency expects to finalize 
     during the 12-month period following the month covered by the 
     monthly submission and has issued a general notice of 
     proposed rule making--
       ``(A) an approximate schedule for completing action on the 
     rule;
       ``(B) an estimate of whether the rule will cost--
       ``(i) less than $50,000,000;
       ``(ii) $50,000,000 or more but less than $100,000,000;
       ``(iii) $100,000,000 or more but less than $500,000,000;
       ``(iv) $500,000,000 or more but less than $1,000,000,000;
       ``(v) $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000,000;
       ``(vi) $5,000,000,000 or more but less than 
     $10,000,000,000; or
       ``(vii) $10,000,000,000 or more; and
       ``(C) any estimate of the economic effects of the rule, 
     including the imposition of unfunded mandates and any 
     estimate of the net effect that the rule will have on the 
     number of jobs in the United States, that was considered in 
     drafting the rule, or, if no such estimate is available, a 
     statement affirming that no information on the economic 
     effects, including the effect on the number of jobs, of the 
     rule has been considered.

     ``SEC. 652. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 
                   PUBLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Agency-Specific Information Published Monthly.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the submission of information 
     pursuant to section 651, the Administrator shall make such 
     information publicly available on the Internet.
       ``(b) Cumulative Assessment of Agency Rule Making Published 
     Annually.--
       ``(1) Publication in the federal register.--Not later than 
     October 1 of each year, the Administrator shall publish in 
     the Federal Register the following, with respect to the 
     previous year:
       ``(A) The information that the Administrator received from 
     the head of each agency under section 651.
       ``(B) The number of rules and a list of each such rule--
       ``(i) that was proposed by each agency, including, for each 
     such rule, an indication of whether the issuing agency 
     conducted an analysis of the costs or benefits of the rule; 
     and
       ``(ii) that was finalized by each agency, including for 
     each such rule an indication of whether--

       ``(I) the issuing agency conducted an analysis of the costs 
     or benefits of the rule;
       ``(II) the agency claimed an exemption from the procedures 
     under section 553 pursuant to section 553(g)(2)(A); and
       ``(III) the rule was issued pursuant to a statutory mandate 
     or the rule making is committed to agency discretion by law.

       ``(C) The number of agency actions and a list of each such 
     action taken by each agency that--
       ``(i) repealed a rule;
       ``(ii) reduced the scope of a rule;
       ``(iii) reduced the cost of a rule; or
       ``(iv) accelerated the expiration date of a rule.
       ``(D) The total cost (without reducing the cost by any 
     offsetting benefits) of all rules proposed or finalized, the 
     total cost of any unfunded mandates imposed by all such 
     rules, and the number of rules for which an estimate of the 
     cost of the rule was not available.
       ``(2) Publication on the internet.--Not later than October 
     1 of each year, the Administrator shall make publicly 
     available on the Internet the following:
       ``(A) The analysis of the costs or benefits, if conducted, 
     for each proposed rule or final rule issued by an agency for 
     the previous year.
       ``(B) The docket number and regulation identifier number 
     for each proposed or final rule issued by an agency for the 
     previous year.
       ``(C) The number of rules and a list of each such rule 
     reviewed by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget for the previous year, and the authority under which 
     each such review was conducted.
       ``(D) The number of rules and a list of each such rule for 
     which the head of an agency completed a review under section 
     610 for the previous year.
       ``(E) The number of rules and a list of each such rule 
     submitted to the Comptroller General under section 801.
       ``(F) The number of rules and a list of each such rule for 
     which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in either 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate under section 802.

[[Page 619]]



     ``SEC. 653. REQUIREMENT FOR RULES TO APPEAR IN AGENCY-
                   SPECIFIC MONTHLY PUBLICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a rule may 
     not take effect until the information required to be made 
     publicly available on the Internet regarding such rule 
     pursuant to section 652(a) has been so available for not less 
     than 6 months.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--The requirement of subsection (a) shall 
     not apply in the case of a rule--
       ``(1) for which the agency issuing the rule claims an 
     exception under section 553(g)(2)(A); or
       ``(2) which the President determines by Executive order 
     should take effect because the rule is--
       ``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       ``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
       ``(C) necessary for national security; or
       ``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
     international trade agreement.

     ``SEC. 654. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter, the terms `agency', `agency action', 
     `rule', and `rule making' have the meanings given those terms 
     in section 551, and the term `unfunded mandate' has the 
     meaning given the term `Federal mandate' in section 421(6) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(6)).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part I of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 5, 
     the following:

``6.  The Analysis of Regulatory Functions.....................601 ....

``6A.  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Publication of 
    Information Relating to Rules............................651''.....

       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Agency monthly submission to the office of information 
     and regulatory affairs.--The first submission required 
     pursuant to section 651 of title 5, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall be submitted not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this title, and 
     monthly thereafter.
       (2) Cumulative assessment of agency rule making.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 652 of title 5, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take 
     effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this title.
       (B) Deadline.--The first requirement to publish or make 
     available, as the case may be, under subsection (b) of 
     section 652 of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall be the first October 1 after the 
     effective date of such subsection.
       (C) First publication.--The requirement under section 
     652(b)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall include for the first publication, any 
     analysis of the costs or benefits conducted for a proposed or 
     final rule, for the 10 years before the date of the enactment 
     of this title.
       (3) Requirement for rules to appear in agency-specific 
     monthly publication.--Section 653 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the 
     date that is 8 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     title.

      TITLE VI--PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH TRANSPARENCY ACT

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Providing Accountability 
     Through Transparency Act''.

     SEC. 602. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO 
                   REGULATIONS.GOV.

       Section 553(d)(1) of title 5, United States Code, as 
     inserted by section 103(b) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G)(iv) by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting ``;'';
       (2) in subparagraph (H)(ii), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
       ``(I) the internet address of a summary of not more than 
     100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, 
     that shall be posted on the internet website under section 
     206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
     (commonly known as regulations.gov).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
those printed in part A of House Report 115-2. Each such amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 39, line 3, insert after ``made by agencies.'' the 
     following: ``If the reviewing court determines that a 
     statutory or regulatory provision relevant to its decision 
     contains a gap or ambiguity, the court shall not interpret 
     that gap or ambiguity as an implicit delegation to the agency 
     of legislative rule making authority and shall not rely on 
     such gap or ambiguity as a justification either for 
     interpreting agency authority expansively or for deferring to 
     the agency's interpretation on the question of law.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if Congress is effectively to rein in 
the runaway administrative state, a crucial part of the plan must be to 
overturn, legislatively, the doctrines of judicial deference to 
agencies' interpretations of the statutes and regulations they 
administer. These doctrines, founded in the Supreme Court's decision in 
Chevron v. NRDC and Auer v. Robbins, have, over the years, turned the 
courts far too much into a rubberstamp rather than a vigorous check on 
the self-serving tendencies of agencies to interpret the law to expand 
their own power.
  Title II of the bill, the Separation of Powers Act, delivers this 
legislative reversal of Chevron and Auer. There is one thing, though, 
that still needs to be added to that portion of the bill; that is 
language to check the potential that once they are restored--the full 
interpretive powers that rightfully belong to them--our Article III 
courts will not engage in judicial activism.
  To put a point on it, judges must not be allowed to use the 
Separation of Powers Act as a license to interpret ambiguous statutes 
always to expand agency power. My amendment, therefore, succinctly but 
powerfully provides just that. It prohibits courts from reading 
ambiguities in statutes to contain implicit delegation of legislative 
rulemaking authority to agencies or from reading those ambiguities 
expansively to extend agency power.
  Although it failed in its task, the Chevron doctrine was originally 
crafted to help check that kind of judicial activism. As we end the 
failed Chevron experiment, we should make sure we do not go back to 
judicial activism. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, to say that this amendment stops 
judicial activism is stretching things a little bit, I believe. This 
opens the floodgates to judicial activism, the Goodlatte amendment, so 
that is why I oppose the amendment. It revises title II of the bill to 
eliminate agencies' ``gap-filling'' authority when interpreting 
ambiguous statutes.
  Judicial review of final agency action is a hallmark of 
administrative law and is critical to ensuring that agency action does 
not harm or adversely affect the public. But as the Supreme Court held, 
in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, reviewing 
courts may only invalidate an agency action when it violates a 
constitutional provision or when an agency exceeds its statutory 
authority as clearly expressed by Congress.
  That is a clear rule that has worked fine for America for the last 30 
years. Over that time, this seminal decision has required deference to 
the substantive expertise and political accountability of Federal 
agencies because, after all, judges don't have political accountability 
because they are appointed for life. They are not elected by the 
people.
  So this legislation is turning around this very fair and balanced 
court decision and, instead, imposing a new setup, one that invites 
judges--whom they appoint, by the way. They are the ones who have 
refused, for the last year, to appoint or to consider the appointment 
of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice so that they could get a Republican in 
the White House.

[[Page 620]]

  They did not want anybody other than somebody made to order, and this 
is what this legislation lays the groundwork for is that new Supreme 
Court Justice who has yet to be named by a Republican incoming 
President. But you can bet it will be one who has corporate interests 
at heart instead of that of middle class and working people and 
regular, ordinary people. You can bet that that Supreme Court 
representative will be ready to do away with the Chevron doctrine and 
comply with this legislative mandate, which is open season on 
regulations, allowing the Federal judiciary to impose its political 
beliefs on regulations.
  So that is going to be bad for America. Generalist courts, which are 
constitutionally insulated from political accountability, should not 
have the power to second-guess agency experts concerning the 
appropriateness of highly technical regulations crucial to protecting 
the health and safety of millions of Americans.
  Moreover, this doctrine promotes predictability for businesses and 
the public. Professor Levin notes that ``because citizens can put some 
confidence in the expectation that decisions by a centralized agency 
will not be readily overturned by a variety of courts in different 
parts of the country,'' that contributes to predictability.

                              {time}  1515

  Title II of H.R. 5, however, would upend this longstanding precedent 
by abolishing the Chevron doctrine.
  This amendment further puts the thumb on the scale against lifesaving 
protections by ensuring that practically any statutory ambiguity will 
be resolved in favor of a regulated entity and against agency action, 
no matter how important.
  This amendment is also a solution in search of a problem. As 
Professor Levin has testified, ``the field of administrative law has 
worked out a variety of political and judicial oversight mechanisms to 
maintain a delicate balance of power among the branches of 
government.''
  Any administrative action based on an ambiguous statute could be 
challenged by an affected party, and these checks already apply to 
judicial review.
  Finally, this measure would apply equally to regulatory and 
deregulatory actions. John Walke, the clean air director and senior 
attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council warns that if an 
``administration more ideologically opposed to regulation wishes to 
take advantage of the inevitable vagueness, conflicts, and gaps in 
federal statutes, it may adopt the least protective regulation 
permissible under a federal law.''
  Mr. Chair, because this is a bad amendment, I ask that it be opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the record a list of 
organizations supporting H.R. 5.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

                           Agricultural Retailers Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
       To All Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: On 
     behalf of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ABA), I am 
     writing to urge a vote in support of H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act'' sponsored by Representative Bob 
     Goodlatte (R-VA). This legislation includes a number of 
     important provisions designed to reform the Federal 
     rulemaking process.
       All stakeholders have a right to fair, open, and 
     transparent rulemaking that respects the proper role of the 
     states and the intent of Congress. For decades, there have 
     been Executive Orders issued from both Republican and 
     Democrat Administrations highlighting the importance of an 
     open, transparent, and fair regulatory process. H.R. 5 is an 
     important step forward in codifying the principles that 
     Presidents of both parties have issued in Executive Order 
     12004 (Issued in Match 1978), Executive Order 12291 (Issued 
     in February 1981), Executive Order 12866 (Issued in September 
     1993), Executive Order 13132 (Issued in August 1999), and 
     Executive Order 13563 (Issued in January 2011).
       Some of the reforms in H.R. 5 include provisions such as 
     requiring federal agencies to use less costly regulations, 
     rather than more costly proposals, to obtain a stated 
     objective; requiring federal agencies to explain how their 
     proposed regulations would impact small business owners, 
     their employees, and customers; prohibiting any new rules 
     with a significant economic impact from taking effect until 
     litigation against such proposal has been fully settled 
     without impacting existing regulations; and requiring Federal 
     agencies to publish mandatory transparency reports.
       Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) plans to offer an amendment on 
     the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit 
     agencies from using social media to sway public opinion in 
     favor of a pending agency proposal. This common-sense 
     amendment is necessary to prevent actions taken by federal 
     agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) that the General Accountability Office (GAO) found took 
     unlawful actions during its `Waters of the United States'' 
     (WOTUS) proposed rulemaking. ARA urges all House members to 
     vote in favor of the Peterson amendment and to vote ``Yes'' 
     on final passage of H.R, 5.
           Sincerely,

                                            Richard D. Gupton,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Public Policy & Counsel.
                                  ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
     House of Representatives, 
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep.: The House of Representatives will soon take up 
     H.R. 5 for debate and a vote. This measure contains a number 
     of important elements that are designed to improve the 
     Federal rulemaking process. American Farm Bureau urges all 
     members to vote in favor of this legislation.
       For decades, presidents of both parties have issued 
     Executive Orders and Memoranda underscoring the importance of 
     a regulatory process that is open, transparent and fair:
       President Carter stipulated in EO 12044 that regulations 
     should not impose unnecessary burdens on the economy.
       President Reagan issued EO 12291 in February 1981 to assure 
     that least-cost alternatives would be used in regulatory 
     decision-making.
       President Clinton affirmed that regulations should maximize 
     net benefits (EO 12866, September 1993). Later in his 
     Administration, President Clinton issued EO 13132 reaffirming 
     the importance of federalism and respecting the rights of 
     states.
       President Obama underscored the importance of sound science 
     in his Memorandum of March 2009. He also reaffirmed President 
     Clinton's EO 12866 when he issued EO 13563.
       We understand that an amendment to H.R. 5 will be offered 
     on the floor by Rep. Peterson to prohibit agencies from using 
     social media to sway public opinion in favor of a pending 
     agency proposal. This amendment stems directly from EPA's 
     conduct in its `waters of the US' (WOTUS) rulemaking, conduct 
     found unlawful by the General Accountability Office and 
     scrupulously detailed in a report released by the House 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
     ``Politicization of the Waters of the United States 
     Rulemaking.'' We strongly support the Peterson amendment and 
     urge all members to vote in favor of its adoption.
       All stakeholders--farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, 
     academics, agency staff, and the general public--have a right 
     to a rulemaking process that is fair, open, transparent, 
     respectful of the role of states in our Federal system, and 
     faithful to the intent of Congress. H.R. 5 is an important 
     step in codifying principles that Presidents of both parties 
     have enunciated for decades. This legislation deserves 
     strong, bipartisan support.
       We urge all members to vote in favor of the Peterson 
     amendment and to vote ``Yes'' on final passage of H.R. 5.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Zippy Duvall,
     President.
                                  ____



                    Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.,

                                  Washington, DC, January 5, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Associated Builders and 
     Contractors (ABC), a national construction industry trade 
     association with 70 chapters representing nearly 21,000 
     members, I am writing in support of the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act of 2017 (H.R. 5) introduced by Rep. Bob 
     Goodlatte (R-VA). ABC supports this legislation, which would 
     reform the Administrative Procedures Act and strengthen 
     existing checks on federal agencies, allowing for more cost-
     effective regulations through a more transparent process.
       As builders of our communities and infrastructure, ABC 
     members understand the value of standards and regulations 
     based on solid evidence, with appropriate consideration paid 
     to implementation costs and input from affected businesses. 
     ABC strongly supports comprehensive regulatory reform which 
     includes across-the-board requirements for departments and 
     agencies to appropriately evaluate risks, weigh costs, and 
     assess benefits of all regulations. H.R. 5 is an excellent 
     step in regulatory reform as it ensures more accountability 
     from federal agencies and greater stakeholder transparency.
       Today, federal regulatory agencies wield incredible power 
     through rulemaking. They

[[Page 621]]

     have grown adept at using procedural loopholes in order to 
     accomplish narrowly-focused goals. These agencies operate 
     relatively unchecked and unsupervised, especially during the 
     early stages of the regulatory process. They often disregard 
     and circumvent the will of Congress and the American public 
     by issuing regulations with poor or incomplete economic cost-
     benefit forecasting or other data analysis, instead of using 
     the best and most accurate data that could have created more 
     practical, sustainable rules and regulations.
       Consequently, some regulations that have limited or 
     questionable benefit result in crippling costs for companies 
     and often no serious consideration is given for more 
     practical alternatives. For the construction industry, these 
     regulations routinely translate into higher costs and are 
     passed along to the consumer.
       Ultimately, these costs impact our industry's ability to 
     expand and hire more workers. It is particularly alarming 
     that small businesses, which comprise the vast majority of 
     the industry, are disproportionately affected by this 
     irresponsible approach to regulation.
       Thank you for your attention on this important matter and 
     we urge the House to pass the Regulatory Accountability Act 
     of 2017.
           Sincerely,

                                           Kristen Swearingen,

                                     Vice President of Legislative
     & Political Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                  Arlington, VA, January 10, 2017.
     Re Vote ``YES'' on the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 
         H.R. 5.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ryan: On behalf of the Associated 
     General Contractors of America (AGC) and its more than 26,000 
     commercial construction company members, I strongly urge you 
     to vote ``YES'' on the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 
     H.R. 5. This legislation is critical to helping ensure that 
     regulations undergo thorough economic analysis, are based in 
     sound science and/or substantial empirical data, and are 
     transparent with clear and feasible methods and goals.
       The current regulatory process allows federal agencies to 
     promulgate rules based on unconvincing, scant and--
     sometimes--just plain wrong evidence. For example, Professor 
     David L. Sunding, Ph.D., Thomas J. Graff Chair of Natural 
     Resource Economics at the University of California, Berkeley 
     found that the ``errors, omissions, and lack of 
     transparency'' in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     economic analysis underlying its Waters of the Unites States 
     (WOTUS) rule to be ``so severe as to render it virtually 
     meaningless.'' Yet, the EPA was able to finalize that rule 
     based on such flawed analysis.
       Federal agencies also write rules that are not feasible for 
     the construction industry to follow. The Occupational Health 
     and Safety Administration (OSHA) crystalline silica rule, for 
     instance, put forth a permissible silica exposure limit that 
     is beyond the capacity of existing dust filtration and 
     removal technology. Despite this fact, OSHA finalized this 
     rule and the construction industry is left liable to 
     implement.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act will help hold federal 
     agencies accountable to the facts throughout the rulemaking 
     process. Under this legislation, the public could challenge 
     the underlying evidence agencies put forth to justify their 
     rules. Such challenges could occur through hearings before 
     the agency and before courts, which generally defer to any 
     evidence put forth by federal agencies currently. As a 
     result, agencies would be incentivized to undertake more 
     rigorous and realistic analyses, rather than risk delays as a 
     result of relying on cherry-picked studies or self-serving, 
     internal data.
       The purpose of the bill is not partisan. Rather, it is to 
     ensure that the regulations federal agencies put forth are 
     feasible and based in thorough economic analysis and sound 
     science. To do so, H.R. 5 allows for greater transparency, 
     more public participation and needed objectivity in the 
     rulemaking process. As such, AGC again urges you to for in 
     favor of H.R. 5.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
     Senior Executive Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                          Business Roundtable,

                                                  January 6, 2017.
     Re Support for H.R. 5--The Regulatory Accountability Act of 
         2017.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the CEO 
     members of Business Roundtable, who lead major U.S. companies 
     with more than $6 trillion in annual revenues and nearly 15 
     million employees, I am pleased to express our strong support 
     for H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, 
     introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
       Business Roundtable CEOs have consistently identified 
     overly complex and burdensome federal regulations as harmful 
     to accelerating job creation, job retention and increased 
     economic opportunity for American workers and their families. 
     We support a smarter approach to federal regulation that 
     would engage regulated parties earlier in the process, 
     improve the quality of information used to make regulatory 
     decisions and consistently apply rigorous cost-benefit 
     analysis to major regulatory proposals.
       We are particularly pleased that H.R. 5 includes the 
     previously introduced version of the Regulatory 
     Accountability Act, also championed by Chairman Goodlatte, 
     the ALERT Act, championed by Representative John Ratcliffe, 
     and the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, 
     championed by Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer.
       Overall, the smart regulatory improvements embodied in the 
     Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 will:
       Make U.S. companies more competitive. Usually after 
     prolonged periods of consideration, federal agencies 
     regularly issue rules that impose large and often unnecessary 
     burdens on U.S. businesses--burdens that foreign competitors 
     may not have to bear. The Act will reduce these burdens.
       Enable U.S. companies to be more innovative. American 
     businesses are the world's most innovative, and that 
     innovation supports America's high standard of living. Rules 
     that require particular technologies or approaches or fail to 
     keep up with technological evolution can jeopardize future 
     innovation. The Act will encourage flexible, non-prescriptive 
     implementation that preserves the capacity to innovate.
       Stimulate investment by enhancing business certainty. If 
     companies are unsure about what regulators will require or 
     how to comply with rules, they will be reluctant to commit 
     capital to new or expanded productive investments. By 
     encouraging early engagement with regulated parties and 
     improving the transparency and accountability of the 
     regulatory process, the Act will result in greater certainty 
     for U.S. businesses and thereby accelerate job growth and 
     investment.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 would make the 
     U.S. regulatory system more transparent, accountable and 
     effective. We endorse this legislation and pledge our full 
     support to see it enacted into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark J. Costa,
           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Chemical 
                                                           Company
     Chair, Smart Regulation Committee, Business Roundtable.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                                  of Realtors,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On behalf 
     of the 1.1 million members of the National Association of 
     REALTORS (NAR), I urge the House to approve H.R. 5 
     (Goodlatte, R-VA; Peterson, D-MN), the ``Regulatory 
     Accountability Act''.
       NAR believes that federal regulations should be narrowly 
     tailored, supported by strong data and evidence, and impose 
     the least costs possible on regulated stakeholders.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act embodies these principles 
     and will contribute to a more transparent and accountable 
     regulatory process by:
       Increasing public participation in shaping the most-costly 
     regulations at an earlier point in the rulemaking process;
       Instructing agencies to choose the least costly option that 
     achieves congressional intent unless they can show a costlier 
     option is needed to protect health, safety, or welfare;
       Requiring public hearings for the most-costly regulations;
       Improving the process for evaluating how small businesses 
     are impacted by regulations; and
       Providing for a more rigorous test in legal challenges for 
     those regulations that would have the most impact.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act builds on established 
     principles of a fair regulatory process and would make the 
     regulatory process more transparent, agencies more 
     accountable for their decisions, and regulations better-
     tailored to achieve their purpose without unnecessary burdens 
     on stakeholders.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act would allow Congress and 
     the public to reassert control over the federal regulatory 
     bureaucracy. Therefore, NAR strongly supports the Act, and 
     urges passage of the bill when it comes to the House floor 
     for a vote.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William E. Brown,
                                                   2017 President.

[[Page 622]]

     
                                  ____
                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
     Hon. Steve Chabot,
     Chairman, House Committee on Small Business,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chabot, on behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of 
     H.R. 33, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility 
     Improvements Act of 2017. This legislation puts into place 
     strong protections to ensure that federal agencies fully 
     consider the impact of proposed regulations on small 
     businesses.
       In an economy where two-thirds of all net new jobs come 
     from the small business sector, we appreciate that this 
     legislation would require regulators to analyze further the 
     impact of certain proposals on job creation. As you well 
     know, the annual cost of federal regulation per employee is 
     significantly higher for smaller firms than larger firms. 
     Federal regulations--not to mention state and local 
     regulations--add up and significantly increase the cost of 
     starting and running a small business.
       H.R. 33 expands the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
     (RFA) by forcing government regulators to include the 
     indirect impact of their regulations in their assessments of 
     a regulation's impact on small businesses. The bill also 
     provides small business with expanded judicial review 
     protections, which helps ensure that small businesses have 
     their views heard during the federal rulemaking process, not 
     after.
       The legislation strengthens several other aspects of the 
     RFA--such as expanding the small business advocacy review 
     panel process to all agencies. Currently, the panels only 
     apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These panels have 
     proven to be an extremely effective mechanism in helping 
     agencies to understand how their rules will affect small 
     businesses, and help agencies identify less costly 
     alternatives to regulations before proposing new rules.
       Finally, H.R. 33 expands the standard for periodic review 
     of rules by federal agencies and gives the U.S. Small 
     Business Administration's Office of Advocacy increased input 
     into agency compliance with the RFA. These important 
     protections are needed to prevent duplicative and outdated 
     regulatory burdens as well as to address penalty structures 
     that are too high for the small business sector.
       NFIB supports H.R. 33 because it strengthens the 
     requirement for federal agencies to consider both the direct 
     and indirect economic impact of proposed regulations on small 
     businesses. We look forward to working with the committee 
     towards enactment of the Small Business Regulatory 
     Flexibility Improvements Act of 2017.
           Sincerely,
                                                Juanita D. Duggan,
     President and CEO NFIB.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 5, which 
     includes the Regulatory Accountability Act, and may consider 
     including votes on, or in relation to, H.R. 5 in our annual 
     How They Voted scorecard.
       The Chamber commends the House for acting on regulatory 
     reform legislation so early in the 115th session, and for 
     bringing H.R. 5, which also includes important provisions 
     related to small businesses, to the floor.
       The Regulatory Accountability Act is a long-standing 
     priority for the Chamber and would update the Administrative 
     Procedure Act (APA) to improve how federal agencies 
     promulgate those rules with the most significant impact on 
     jobs and economic growth.
       Modernization of APA is long overdue. While there has been 
     a dramatic increase in high impact, transformative rules that 
     are slowing economic growth and inhibiting job creation, APA 
     rulemaking provisions have remained virtually unchanged since 
     1946 when the law was established.
       H.R. 5 would target only the most expensive and burdensome 
     of these rules for increased scrutiny by providing greater 
     transparency, by holding agencies accountable, and by making 
     sure the data behind the decisions of regulators are made 
     publicly available.
       The Chamber urges you to support this legislation and to 
     oppose any weakening amendment when it is considered likely 
     next week.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Jack Howard,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                  Congressional and Public Affair.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 38, insert after line 10 the following:

     SEC. 110. PROMPT ISSUANCE OF OIRA GUIDELINES.

       The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall establish any guideline required to be established by 
     this title or the amendments made by this title by not later 
     than 270 days after the date of enactment of this title.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 5 requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
often called OIRA, to provide guidelines for agencies on how to 
effectively conduct regulatory activities.
  This is a great bill. I wholeheartedly support the bill. We simply 
want to add a timeline to this bill so that we give the proper 
incentive, notification, and time to properly institute what this new 
law would do.
  The regulatory activities engaged in this bill that OIRA, the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, deals with need to include cost 
and benefit assessments and their economic or risk assessments; 
coordination, simplification, and harmonization of the agency rules; 
conforming rulemaking to the notice and comment requirements and formal 
rulemaking requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act; as well as 
the application of the Information Quality Act to rulemaking 
proceedings under what is called the APA.
  These guidelines required by the underlying bill are moving the 
country in the right direction and will ensure that agencies produce 
thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-vetted regulations.
  The simple amendment that I offer today, Mr. Chairman, to H.R. 5 
simply requires OIRA to issue guidance within 270 days. I think this is 
the right balance of encouragement to have them get going on it right 
away, but at the same time not allowing this to linger in perpetuity 
with no end in sight.
  This amendment provides OIRA, I think, the proper balance. That is 
why I have offered this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Chaffetz amendment. This amendment establishes a deadline of 270 days--
a magical number of days--for some reason. There is no reason given for 
that being the number of days, but that is what they give to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, to issue guidelines 
pursuant to title I of this bill.
  Why 270 days?
  Well, I think I can answer that question. They know that OIRA is not 
equipped to sufficiently deal with regulations within that same amount 
of time period. We have had all this budget cutting going on. We have 
been attacking the Federal Government regulatory authorities throughout 
the entire 6 years that Republicans have been in control of this House. 
They have done 6 years' worth of hobbling OIRA, and now they are going 
to come forward and impose a 270-day requirement. That is like asking 
someone who you have handicapped to run in a relay race that you know 
they can't win.

[[Page 623]]

  To begin with, I would note that OIRA, which typically has fewer than 
50 employees, often serves as a bottleneck for the promulgation of 
economically significant rules, as reported last year by Public 
Citizen.
  Moreover, as a group of the Nation's leading administrative law 
scholars have noted that the Regulatory Accountability Act is 
``unusually ambitious and crammed with details that are impossible to 
summarize,'' that will ``further ossify the rulemaking process with 
little offsetting benefits in the form of better rules.''
  Many of these new procedures task OIRA with making numerous new 
determinations and expanded review of formal rulemaking. In addition, 
to hobbling over the last 6 years, and then imposing a deadline of an 
arbitrary and capricious number of days, you are going to heap 
additional requirements upon them without increasing their staff that 
you have already cut.
  Given the sheer breadth of these requirement, it may be difficult or 
impossible for OIRA to comply with the deadline imposed by this 
amendment, absent additional congressional appropriations, which, of 
course, they are not interested in.
  Accordingly, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, certainly the gentleman from Georgia is not opposed to 
the number 270. It is a beautiful number. Normally we give them about 6 
months to promulgate a rule. This is 50 percent more than that. It is 
roughly 9 months. If a woman can give birth in that amount of time, my 
guess is they can go ahead and put together some rules in that amount 
of time.
  We gave it quite a bit of thought. I think it is properly balanced. 
We don't want it to be a year. It is 50 percent more than we normally 
ask and that OIRA is used to doing in rulemaking. So certainly they can 
accomplish that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that title I of the 
bill contains several key requirements for the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, to put out high-quality, governmentwide 
guidelines that all agencies can follow. These include, for example, 
guidelines on cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, consistency with 
the Information Quality Act, and good guidance practices.
  Since the importance of these issues and the need for swift and 
effective implementation of reform, the amendment's institution of a 
270-day deadline for the issuance of these guidelines is very 
reasonable, very constructive. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think what I gather is that 
we need better regulations. Therefore, we have to provide more 
requirements on OIRA with respect to the regulations it issues, while 
at the same time claiming that regulations are bad and we have 
unelected bureaucrats and all of this kind of stuff like that.
  So we need better laws to allow them to regulate better. Then we are 
going to give them 270 days, which is a little more than we give the 
average agency. Well, I thank you for that, but you have not increased 
the manpower of the agency to deal with the new requirements that you 
are stacking on them. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
  The real reason for this amendment is to help foster the gumming up 
of the Federal regulatory system. That is what it is all about. There 
are a lot of little small ways of doing that, heaping it on top of the 
larger measure, which is itself just inimical to good rulemaking. This 
is a game, and the American people are the big losers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from Georgia is 
opposed to this bill, but I do think it is reasonable to give a time 
frame as to when they are supposed to issue this so it doesn't continue 
on in perpetuity. I think it is reasonable.
  To the gentleman's point about the staffing, we don't get into that 
granular detail here. That is left to the Office of Management and 
Budget. Those decisions have been made by the Obama administration for 
the last 8 years. The new Office of Management and Budget will need to 
take into account the staffing levels and how OMB will determine 
whether they need more staff or less staff, but I would certainly 
support the idea that, if they are overwhelmed with issues, let's make 
sure that they are properly staffed.
  This is an important agency. It is the bottleneck. We have to make 
sure that they are functioning properly. We are supportive of that, but 
I do think it is reasonable to offer that timeline. I appreciate the 
support of the chairman on this, and I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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:

       In section 304(d)(1) of the bill, strike ``and'' at the 
     end.
       In section 304(d)(2) of the bill, strike the period and 
     insert ``; and''.
       In section 304(d), insert after paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       (3) by inserting ``The detailed statement shall include an 
     economic assessment or a summary thereof that is sufficiently 
     detailed to support the agency's certification.'' before 
     ``The agency shall provide such certification''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I offer this amendment to address a longstanding problem: agencies 
not fully analyzing the effects of regulations on small businesses.
  Under the current Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency may certify a 
rule if it expects that the rule will not have--and I am quoting the 
current law here--``a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.''
  When an agency certifies a rule, it does not need to perform a full 
regulatory flexibility analysis. This provision makes sense because not 
every rule affects small businesses.
  Unfortunately, agencies appear to be abusing this provision. 
According to a recent study, agencies only prepared analyses for 
approximately 8 percent of rules finalized between 1996 and 2012.
  A recent example of this occurred with the controversial waters of 
United States rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps 
of Engineers certified that rule despite the significant and direct 
consequences for farmers, ranchers, and home builders. Most of those 
are small businesses.
  Although the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
sent a letter to the agencies stating that the certification was 
improper and urging them to withdraw the rule, the agencies ignored the 
Chief Counsel and proceeded to finalize it anyway.

                              {time}  1530

  This amendment addresses this problem by requiring agencies to 
include--and I am quoting my amendment--``an economic assessment or a 
summary thereof that is sufficiently detailed to support the agency's 
certification.'' This will be published in the Federal Register as part 
of the detailed statement and certification for the proposed rule.
  This approach mirrors the one used in the National Environmental 
Policy Act. When an agency finds a project to have no significant 
impacts on the environment, it is required to provide an environmental 
assessment or a summary of it. Since agencies are required

[[Page 624]]

to provide a threshold analysis when they issue a finding of no 
significant impact for actions that could affect the environment, it 
just makes sense to extend the same type of requirement to rules that 
could affect small businesses. Small businesses, after all, are the 
folks that are responsible for creating two-thirds, or about 70 
percent, of the new jobs created nowadays. So anything that burdens 
these small businesses is something that is, by definition, bad for the 
economy and bad for job creation.
  This particular amendment, I think, improves the underlying 
legislation. It makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, which will further strengthen the RFA and ensure that 
agencies' decisions are supported by data.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require 
agencies to provide a detailed economic assessment prior to certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small business entities.
  I oppose this bill for a number of reasons. Number one, it forces 
agencies to prove a negative. The negative being that it will not have 
a significant--bookmark that for a second--a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
  I mean, proving a negative is always very difficult to do, that it 
won't do this. Certainly very difficult. But then when you give the 
decisionmaker a vague and ambiguous frame of reference like 
``significant,'' what does significant economic impact mean?
  It means different things to different people. So that is vague and 
ambiguous. It allows for unbridled discretion by an unelected 
bureaucrat, to use that term that my friends like to use, but in this 
instance I am using it with respect to a newly appointed plutocratic 
bureaucrat like, say, Linda McMahon at the Small Business 
Administration, a billionaire. Give that to, you know, a bureaucrat 
such as that and let them decide whether or not it has a significant 
economic impact. They are going to say, yes, it has a significant 
economic impact. They are going to do it every time because that is 
their agenda. They support a pro-big-business agenda. That is what they 
represent, and so that is how they would rule.
  When you add that it has to be a substantial number of small 
businesses, well, what is a substantial number? Is it 10 percent, 20 
percent, 50 percent?
  That is up to whoever the decisionmaker is, the unelected bureaucrat. 
We see the setup. I think the American people understand what this 
amendment seeks to do. It requires agencies to provide a detailed 
economic assessment of the economic impacts of a proposed or final rule 
prior to certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
  Title III of H.R. 5 substantially increases agencies' 
responsibilities with respect to rulemaking, including a requirement to 
supply a detailed statement that includes the factual and legal basis 
of the reasons why an agency has determined that a proposed or final 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. 
Boy, you can just chase your tail all around for days trying to meet 
that standard.
  This onerous measure will force agencies to expend already strained 
resources and incur considerable costs to implement the bill. Also, 
giving corporations an opportunity to contest these arbitrary decisions 
if they go the right way in court.
  Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an 
identical version of this legislation considered last Congress would 
cost $55 million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary funds.
  By requiring agencies to quantify the economic effects that a 
rulemaking will have on small businesses, which may be unknowable in 
some cases, this amendment may task agencies with providing an economic 
report on a counterfactual hypothetical basis. This requirement would 
do little to ease compliance costs or promote small business 
development or growth, and more likely it will lead to regulatory 
avoidance and ossification and less small business activity because the 
big businesses are going to be allowed to crowd them out. Accordingly, 
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I will be brief, and then I will invite my colleague from Virginia to 
respond.
  Just a couple of quick points. First of all, relative to this 
significant economic impact language that my distinguished colleague 
from Georgia is talking about, that is already in the existing law, so 
we are not changing anything there. We are not saying it ought to say a 
significant economic impact. It already says that in the existing law. 
Both the bureaucrats and the courts are used to determining what the 
terminology like ``significant'' means under the rule or regulation or 
the law, just as what a reasonable man is. ``Reasonable'' is quite 
common throughout the legal structure.
  We are also not giving discretion to Ms. McMahon, the soon-to-be head 
of the SBA. It is to the Chief Counsel, and he is independent.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our chairman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. Title III of 
the bill contains important reforms to make sure agencies finally take 
seriously Congress' directive to write rules with flexible 
accommodations for small businesses, the source of most of our Nation's 
job creation.
  Congress' demands for flexibility began with the Regulatory 
Accountability Act during the 1980s, but agencies have never fully 
complied. One of the key ways agencies have skirted the law's 
requirements has been to certify their way out of any need to actually 
provide flexibility by finding that a proposed or final rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
  This amendment puts the brakes on an inadequately substantiated 
certification by requiring certifications to include economic 
assessment details sufficient to support the certifications. I support 
the amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, it is already covered in 
current law, so why do we need this amendment?
  Well, it is a messaging piece to be able to say to the listening 
audience that we support small business. Well, gosh, I think we have 
answered that question here on this side whether or not they really do 
support small business. It is clear they support big business, and that 
is what this amendment is going to help facilitate without adding to 
the overall bill. For that reason, I ask that we oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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:

       Strike line 13 on page 39 and all that follows through line 
     26 on page 69, and insert the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

          TITLE III--SMALL BUSINESS REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Regulatory 
     Improvement Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF RULES COVERED BY THE 
                   REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

       Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Economic impact.--The term `economic impact' means, 
     with respect to a proposed or final rule--

[[Page 625]]

       ``(A) any direct economic effect on small entities of such 
     rule; and
       ``(B) any indirect economic effect on small entities which 
     is reasonably foreseeable and results from such rule (without 
     regard to whether small entities will be directly regulated 
     by the rule).''.

     SEC. 303. REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSES.

       (a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Subsection 
     (b) of section 603 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Each initial regulatory flexibility analysis required 
     under this section shall contain a detailed statement 
     describing--
       ``(1) the reasons why the action by the agency is being 
     considered;
       ``(2) the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed 
     rule;
       ``(3) the type of small entities to which the proposed rule 
     will apply;
       ``(4) the number of small entities to which the proposed 
     rule will apply or why such estimate is not available;
       ``(5) the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
     compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
     estimate of the classes of small entities which will be 
     subject to the requirement, the costs, and the type of 
     professional skills necessary to comply with the rule; and
       ``(6) all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, 
     overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule, or the reasons 
     why such a description could not be provided.''.
       (b) Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
       (1) Paragraph (4) of such section is amended by striking 
     ``an explanation'' and inserting ``a detailed explanation''.
       (2) Paragraph (5) of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) a description of the projected reporting, 
     recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, 
     including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
     will be subject to the requirement, the costs, and the type 
     of professional skills necessary to comply with the rule; 
     and''.
       (c) Certification of No Impact.--Subsection (b) of section 
     605 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``detailed'' before ``statement'' both places such term 
     appears.

     SEC. 304. PERIODIC REVIEW OF RULES.

       Section 610 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 610. Periodic review of rules

       ``(a) Not later than 180 days after the effective date of 
     this section, each agency shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and place on its website a plan for the periodic 
     review of rules issued by the agency which the head of the 
     agency determines have a significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities. Such determination 
     shall be made without regard to whether the agency performed 
     an analysis under section 604. The purpose of the review 
     shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued 
     without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent 
     with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to 
     minimize significant economic impacts on a substantial number 
     of small entities. Such plan may be amended by the agency at 
     any time by publishing the revision in the Federal Register 
     and subsequently placing the amended plan on the agency's 
     website.
       ``(b) The plan shall provide for the review of all such 
     agency rules existing on the effective date of this section 
     within 10 years of the date of publication of the plan in the 
     Federal Register and for review of rules adopted after the 
     effective date of this section within 10 years after the 
     publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. If the 
     head of the agency determines that completion of the review 
     of existing rules is not feasible by the established date, 
     the head of the agency shall so certify in a statement 
     published in the Federal Register and may extend the review 
     for not longer than 2 years after publication of notice of 
     extension in the Federal Register. Such certification and 
     notice shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy and 
     the Congress.
       ``(c) Each agency shall annually submit a report regarding 
     the results of its review pursuant to such plan to the 
     Congress and, in the case of agencies other than independent 
     regulatory agencies (as defined in section 3502(5) of title 
     44, United States Code) to the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget. Such report shall include the 
     identification of any rule with respect to which the head of 
     the agency made a determination described in paragraph (5) or 
     (6) of subsection (d) and a detailed explanation of the 
     reasons for such determination.
       ``(d) In reviewing rules under such plan, the agency shall 
     consider the following factors:
       ``(1) The continued need for the rule.
       ``(2) The nature of complaints received by the agency from 
     small entities concerning the rule.
       ``(3) Comments by the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 
     the Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
       ``(4) The complexity of the rule.
       ``(5) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or 
     conflicts with other Federal rules and, unless the head of 
     the agency determines it to be infeasible, State and local 
     rules.
       ``(6) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated 
     or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or 
     other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
       ``(e) The agency shall publish in the Federal Register and 
     on its website a list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to 
     such plan. Such publication shall include a brief description 
     of the rule, the reason why the agency determined that it has 
     a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
     small entities (without regard to whether it had prepared a 
     final regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule), and 
     request comments from the public, the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy, and the Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman concerning 
     the enforcement of the rule.''.

     SEC. 305. CHANGES TO THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT TO 
                   COMPORT WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 13272.

       (a) Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Section 603 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(e) An agency shall notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
     of the Small Business Administration of any draft rules that 
     may have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
     number of small entities either--
       ``(1) when the agency submits a draft rule to the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of 
     Management and Budget, if submission is required; or
       ``(2) if no submission to the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs is so required, at a reasonable time prior 
     to publication of the rule by the agency.''.
       (b) Inclusion in Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 
     Response to Comments on Certification of Proposed Rule.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 604(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after ``initial regulatory 
     flexibility analysis'' the following: ``(or certification of 
     the proposed rule under section 605(b))''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act has reduced regulatory costs by $130 
billion since 1998. However, it could do better. The amendment I am 
offering will improve this process.
  However, unlike the underlying bill, my amendment is actually aligned 
with the original statute, which was created to protect the unique 
needs of small businesses in the regulatory process, not to stop 
regulations. My amendment is also much more cost effective to the 
taxpayers, as the underlying bill creates a massive and unnecessary 
government bureaucracy. It should be noted that my amendment is based 
on bipartisan legislation from a previous Congress, which the committee 
reported by a recorded vote of 26-0.
  The amendment makes improvements to the most significant deficiencies 
facing the Regulatory Flexibility Act without the overly broad changes 
contained in the underlying bill. This includes making sure that 
agencies live up to their obligations to retrospectively review the 
burdens of existing rules on small businesses. The GAO has reported on 
numerous occasions that agency compliance with this requirement was 
poor. My amendment holds the agencies more accountable by requiring 
them to report the results of their reviews to Congress annually.
  My amendment also takes steps to make analyses more detailed so that 
agencies cannot ignore the RFA and simply certify that a rule has no 
significant economic impact on small businesses. Addressing this matter 
will ensure that agencies are required to provide a more factual basis 
for such certifications rather than just a sentence which dismisses the 
concerns of small firms.
  The most important aspect of my amendment is what it does not do. 
Unlike H.R. 5, my amendment does not create a new governmentwide 
bureaucracy or foist a truckload of new responsibilities on the Office 
of Advocacy, which only has a $9 million budget.
  For instance, H.R. 5 requires the Office of Advocacy to approve size 
standards, a function already handled by the SBA. This is like creating 
a Rayburn cafeteria next to the Rayburn cafeteria. It is ridiculous. 
This is a complete waste of taxpayer resources and

[[Page 626]]

will, ironically, take the Office of Advocacy away from its core 
mission of monitoring regulations.
  Also, another aspect that is very important, what this legislation 
does is it is setting the Office of Advocacy to fail. They do not have 
the expertise. They do not have the resources. In addition, H.R. 5 
imposes the panel process across the entire government. I will say that 
again. Across the entire government, including all independent 
agencies. So much for fiscal responsibility. There is another complete 
waste of taxpayer resources, and it will further limit the Office of 
Advocacy's ability to weigh in on the most important matters affecting 
small businesses.
  Instead, my amendment makes the targeted changes to the RFA that 
small businesses have called for over the last 5 years. In doing so, it 
is cost effective and responsible to the taxpayers. I urge Members to 
vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just a couple of points. First, before speaking in opposition to this 
amendment, I would note that the ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, and I 
worked very much in a bipartisan and cooperative manner on a whole 
range of issues. We have done that when she chaired the committee and I 
was the ranking member, and we do that now that I am the chair and she 
is the ranking member. I commend her for that cooperation. We have 
actually gotten a lot of things done in the Small Business Committee on 
behalf of small businesses all across the country in both Democratic 
and Republican districts.
  That being said, I would also note that this particular language, in 
essence, replaces our H.R. 5, title III, with Ms. Velazquez's version. 
She mentioned that hers is bipartisan. Ours is as well. Mr. Cuellar was 
a principal cosponsor of this particular legislation, so, by 
definition, it is bipartisan. I would also note that we have dealt with 
this a number of times over the years, and we have included a 
significant number of Democratic amendments already in our underlying 
bill as well. So it truly is bipartisan.
  The gentlewoman from New York's amendment would essentially strike 
title III of the bill, and it would replace it with alternative 
language. While I am heartened that she agrees that the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act needs to be improved, this amendment just does not go 
far enough to address, in my view, most Federal agencies' habitual 
disregards for small businesses. We know that the bureaucracy does 
disregard small businesses time and time again. That is why we feel so 
strongly about this bill.
  Ms. Velazquez's amendment includes a few of the reforms that the 
current title has, but, unfortunately, it fails to include many other 
important ones. Her amendment does not close the loophole the IRS uses 
to avoid complying with the RFA, for example, and it does not provide 
additional opportunities for small businesses to provide input on 
proposed rules through the Small Business Advocacy Review panel 
process.
  It does not require the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to issue 
government-wide RFA compliance regulations that all agencies must 
follow. Without these compliance regulations, agencies will just 
continue to develop their own interpretations of the RFA to avoid 
complying with the law's requirement.
  America's small businesses deserve more meaningful reform, and the 
current title III of the bill, in our view, does just that; therefore, 
I would urge my colleagues, respectfully, to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for being 
so kind. But let me just say that on this one, your approach is not 
balanced, and it is going to impact the very agencies that you are 
empowering with so many responsibilities.
  I would like to ask the gentleman, adding all these new 
responsibilities that would require manpower and expertise that is 
needed, how much money is included in the authorizing process for this 
office to work properly?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to increase 
bureaucracy or hire a whole lot more people to implement this. We have 
plenty of people right now who work for the Federal Government, and I 
am sure that we can shift some resources around, people can work harder 
and smarter, and we can be leaner and meaner. The bureaucracy has grown 
far too large over the years.
  That money comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes 
out of the hardworking taxpayers of our country. A lot of those folks 
are small business folks, and they are folks that have gotten the short 
end of the stick far too often.
  Hopefully, this Congress will move legislation that comes out of this 
body in a direction where, rather than throw roadblocks, hindrances, 
and more problems in the pathway of small businesses, we are going to 
help them. I know the last thing they want to hear is: I am from the 
government, and I am here to help you.
  The fact is the government does exist, and to the extent we can help 
them, we ought to do that. But most of the small businesses that I talk 
to, what they say is: just get the heck off my back. Quit telling me 
how to do what I know how to do best.
  So we are not anarchists over here. We are not saying that we don't 
need any bureaucracy, we don't need any government, and we don't need 
any regulations. We do need some regulations, but we overregulate now. 
Hopefully, this is just one step in scaling back on the overregulation 
that comes out of Washington and is like a wet blanket over small 
businesses all over the country and like a wet blanket over the 
American economy. So let's get that wet blanket off, let's get the 
economy moving, and let's Make America Great Again.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Peterson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. PETERSON. 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 18, insert after line 8 the following:
       ``(5) After notice or advance notice of a proposed rule 
     making, the agency making the rule, and any person acting in 
     an official capacity on behalf of the agency, may not 
     communicate, and a person who receives Federal funds from the 
     agency may not use those funds to communicate, through 
     written, oral, electronic, or other means to the public about 
     the proposed rule in a manner that--
       ``(A) directly advocates, in support of or against the 
     proposed rule, for the submission of information to form part 
     of the record of review for the proposed rule;
       ``(B) appeals to the public, or solicits a third-party, to 
     undertake advocacy in support of or against the proposed 
     rule; or
       ``(C) is directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized 
     by the Congress.
     Such prohibition shall not apply to communication that 
     requests comments or provides information regarding the rule 
     in an impartial manner.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This 
amendment will prohibit Federal agencies from using taxpayer dollars to 
advocate on behalf of a rule or generate

[[Page 627]]

comments to overwhelm the record with one point of view.
  A GAO report documents how the EPA created a campaign to generate 
comments in support of the waters of the U.S., or the WOTUS rule. This 
is not how government, or the rulemaking process, should work.
  The comment period should be a time for agencies to hear from the 
public about what is good, what is bad, and what needs to be fixed with 
a proposed rule. In my opinion, agencies too often take laws passed by 
Congress and then turn them into something that is unrecognizable. That 
is why this amendment is needed and has the support of the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Wheat Growers, and 
the National Association of Home Builders, among others.
  This is a commonsense amendment that will improve the bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully claim the time 
in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which 
would prohibit Federal agencies from making any public communications 
that would promote a pending regulatory action.
  We can all agree that the rulemaking process should be transparent, 
flexible, and accountable to the public. But rather than achieve this 
goal, my colleagues' amendment would decrease transparency in the 
rulemaking process and burden agency rulemaking with little 
corresponding benefits to the public.
  A variety of statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and 
agency specific statutes, already prescribe the method that agencies 
may communicate to the public with regard to proposed rules. Agencies 
should, and indeed are required by law to, communicate why rules are 
beneficial to the public. For example, in 2014, the Department of 
Defense proposed a rule to protect servicemembers and their families 
from predatory lending schemes. In a press release discussing the rule, 
the Defense Department highlighted the benefits of the rule such as 
``this proposed rule would better protect Active Duty servicemembers 
and their families from excessive debt.''
  This plain language explanation of the proposed rule would be flatly 
prohibited by this amendment. Indeed, there is little that an agency 
could discuss about a pending rule that would not be considered to be 
promoting the rule within the meaning of this amendment.
  In the context of the proposed deregulation actions, in 2003, Bush 
administration officials posed with chainsaws and scissors next to a 
stack of papers to promote efforts to cut red tape. It is doubtful that 
this form of public communication would be permissible under this 
amendment. By the way, to see the Bush administration officials with a 
chainsaw and scissors going at regulations reminds me of what we are 
doing here today.
  In the context of a veto threat of a similar antiregulatory proposal 
last Congress, the Obama administration stated that similar 
requirements would prevent agencies from efficiently performing their 
statutory responsibilities and potentially lead to a less informed 
public.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
so as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I support his amendment.
  Title I of the bill contains critical reforms to the rulemaking 
process first introduced in the 112th Congress. In one sentence, one 
could say that these reforms have one ultimate goal--to assure a fair 
rulemaking process that achieves the benefits Congress seeks and keeps 
unnecessary costs to a minimum.
  The gentleman's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, responds to an 
extreme example of rulemaking abuse that played out during the 114th 
Congress. That abuse was the Environmental Protection Agency's advocacy 
campaign to skew the information submitted for its administrative 
record and promote lobbying on behalf of its massive proposed waters of 
the United States rule.
  It is one thing to propose a rule and open the agency's doors 
impartially to information from all members of the public. It is quite 
another to promote public submissions to guarantee the cooking of the 
administrative record to support the agency's view and to advocate 
lobbying of Congress to support that view.
  This amendment makes sure that the biased agency activity manifest in 
the waters of the United States rulemaking never happens again.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gerald Connolly 
wanted it to be known for the record that agency employees are already 
barred under appropriations bills from engaging in publicity or 
propaganda. Agency employees are specifically barred from engaging in 
substantial grass-roots lobbying campaigns when those campaigns are 
aimed at encouraging members of the public to pressure Members of 
Congress to support administration or department legislative or 
appropriations proposals.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. I have no further speakers, Mr. Chairman. I just want 
to say that some of us who have been chairmen of committees and passed 
legislation around here, sometimes what comes back you don't even 
recognize from what you passed legislatively. This bill and this 
amendment will help solve that problem, to some extent. So I encourage 
my colleagues to support the amendment and support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this amendment 
and in strong opposition to the Regulatory Accountability Act.
  This bill is another thinly veiled mechanism for the majority to 
attack agency rulemaking with which they disagree.
  This amendment would prevent agencies from publicly disclosing 
information that, quote, ``directly advocates, in support of or against 
the proposed rule, for the submission of information to form part of 
the record of review for the proposed rule.''
  I am concerned that the way this language is written it could 
restrict agencies from providing information about the benefits of a 
rule and soliciting public feedback.
  The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to solicit public 
comments on proposed rules except in narrow circumstances. We should be 
encouraging agencies to solicit public comments in order to provide 
businesses, consumer groups, and other members of the public with the 
opportunity to make suggestions to the agency for improving the 
proposed rule.
  Agency employees are already barred under appropriations bills from 
engaging in publicity or propaganda.
  Agency employees are specifically barred from engaging in 
``substantial `grassroots' lobbying campaigns'' when those campaigns 
are aimed at encouraging members of the public ``to pressure Members of 
Congress to support Administration or Department legislative or 
appropriations proposals.''
  While transparency is always helpful in the regulatory process, a 
requirement that agencies report to Congress every communication to the 
public--including every oral communication from an agency official--
would be unnecessarily burdensome and would not be feasible for 
agencies.
  The GAO has already defined covert communications, self-
aggrandizement, and purely partisan activities as categories of agency 
communications that are often restricted by these appropriations 
riders.
  Agencies are authorized to regulate by Congress, but this amendment 
would further handicap federal agencies from fulfilling their critical 
missions.
  Under the guise of ``accountability'' this amendment is not even a 
thinly disguised attempt to muzzle commonsense regulation by

[[Page 628]]

suppressing even the ability to explain the proposed rule in the first 
place.
  I urge my colleagues to uphold Congress' confidence in the agency 
rulemaking process and vote against this amendment and against the 
Regulatory Accountability Act.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 Minnesota 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1600


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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 23, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 24, insert after line 5 the following:
       ``(iii) in the case of a major rule, a report on the 
     benefits and costs of the final rule on entities whose 
     conduct is regulated by the rule in the Federal Register, to 
     be revised every 5 years thereafter while the rule remains in 
     effect, and including, at a minimum--
       ``(I) an assessment of the impacts, including any costs, of 
     the major rule on regulated entities;
       ``(II) a determination about how the actual benefits and 
     costs of the major rule have varied from those anticipated at 
     the time the major rule was issued;
       ``(III) an assessment of the effectiveness and benefits of 
     the major rule in producing the regulatory objectives of the 
     major rule; and
       ``(IV) a review by the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
     Management and Budget when required under executive order; 
     and''.
       Page 30, line 16, insert after ``the Federal Open Market 
     Committee.'' the following:
       ``(n) Regulation-specific Frameworks.--
       ``(1) Report to congress.--The agency shall provide a 
     report to Congress not later than 90 days after the agency 
     makes any determination under subsection (f)(4)(I)(iii)(II) 
     that the cost to regulated entities has exceeded the 
     anticipated cost at the time the final rule was issued. The 
     agency, at a minimum, shall assess in the report--
       ``(A) whether the major rule is accomplishing its 
     regulatory objective; and
       ``(B) whether the major rule has been rendered unnecessary, 
     taking into consideration--
       ``(i) changes in the subject area affected by the major 
     rule;
       ``(ii) whether the major rule overlaps, duplicates, or 
     conflicts with other rules or, to the extent feasible, State 
     and local government regulations; and
       ``(iii) other alternatives to the major rule or 
     modification of the major rule that might achieve better 
     results while imposing a smaller burden on society or at a 
     lower cost, taking into consideration any cost already 
     incurred.
       ``(2) Reopening of public docket.--Upon delivery of the 
     report required in paragraph (1) the agency shall--
       ``(A) reopen the public docket for 60 days to receive 
     additional comments; and
       ``(B) consider modifications or alternatives that reduce 
     costs and increase benefits to regulated entities or 
     individuals.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to affect any other provision of law that 
     requires an agency to conduct retrospective reviews of rules 
     issued by the agency.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, since 2008, approximately 
3,300 regulations have been issued on an annual basis. I will say that 
again. Since 2008, approximately 3,300 regulations have been issued on 
an annual basis. The cost of compliance with those regulations is 
estimated to be somewhere around $981 billion, and if you add up the 
costs of compliance of all regulations, it is approximately double 
that. According to various studies that are out there, since 2008, the 
costs of complying with Federal regulations has doubled.
  Mr. Chairman, this isn't about some huge megacorporation that is 
worth billions of dollars and is a multinational company. This impacts 
individuals. This impacts families. As a matter of fact, a study done 
by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that approximately 
$15,000 per year is how much the average American family spends just to 
comply with Federal regulations.
  Major regulations are regulations that are estimated to cost in 
excess of $100 million. Under our amendment, what we do is simply 
require that, every 5 years, the Federal agency that has promulgated--
that has finalized--a regulation go back and check how much it is 
actually costing to comply with the regulation.
  Here is why it is important, Mr. Chairman.
  If you go back to a regulation that was proposed by the Department of 
the Interior within the last year and a half that has to do with well 
control in offshore energy production, the Department of the Interior 
estimated that the cost of complying with that regulation was going to 
be, approximately, $883 million over 10 years. However, a private 
analysis that was done estimated that that figure was approximately 
one-tenth of the true cost of compliance over the first decade--one-
tenth.
  There is nothing that holds the Federal agencies accountable. They 
can lowball numbers. They can stay below the threshold of a major 
action and not ever have to be held accountable to the additional 
analysis that is required for major regulatory actions. This, simply, 
makes agencies go back on major regulations to re-quantify--reassess--
the costs of compliance to make sure that their numbers are accurate, 
that they understand the costs of compliance, and the impact on the 
average American family.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am from the State of Louisiana. A study that 
was done by the Mercatus Center found that the State of Louisiana is 
the most federally regulated State in the United States. As a matter of 
fact, so regulated that we are regulated 74 percent more than the 
average State--74 percent more. That has a significant impact on jobs, 
on our economy.
  The cosponsor of this amendment--the gentleman from Texas with whom I 
worked very closely, Mr. Chairman--says his State of Texas is burdened 
by an additional 30 percent of regulations above the national average. 
It is inappropriate; it penalizes our economy; it sends jobs overseas; 
and, most importantly, it penalizes American families.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, any time I hear the name 
``Mercatus Center'' I think of pro-big business, antiregulation. This 
amendment imposes even more paralyzing rulemaking requirements to the 
more than 60 analytical and procedural requirements that are already 
mandated by title I of this bill. You are giving them more homework on 
top of homework--busywork, red tape. Gum up the works--that is what 
this is all about.
  The amendment would require agencies to assess the economic impacts 
of major rules every 5 years, including a cost-benefit analysis of the 
rule every 5 years, an estimate of the rule's cost on regulated 
entities, and whether these costs exceed an agency's initial estimates, 
among other requirements. Worse yet, once this information is compiled, 
the amendment would also require the agency to reopen the public docket 
on the rule for 60 days to consider modifications to the underlying 
rule.
  Under current law, Federal agencies already conduct an extensive 
retrospective review process of existing rules and have already saved 
taxpayers billions in cost savings. This is yet another attempt to 
derail the rulemaking process by paralysis through analysis.
  Since 2011, the Obama administration has made a durable commitment to 
ensuring the retrospective review of existing regulatory protections. 
Pursuant

[[Page 629]]

to Executive Order Nos. 13563 and 13610, agencies are already required 
to conduct a periodic review of existing rules to protect public health 
while reducing paperwork burdens.
  Furthermore, as the Obama administration stated in the context of a 
veto threat of a similarly draconian antiregulatory proposal, ``it is 
important that retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily constrain 
an agency's ability to provide a timely response to critical public 
health or safety issues or constrain its ability to implement new 
statutory provisions.''
  This amendment would do just that by requiring agencies to conduct a 
perpetual notice-and-comment process for major rules that have been 
adopted long ago. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, and I support 
his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, many of the reforms in title I of the bill focus on 
assuring better decisionmaking and cost control for major rules--
typically, those that impose more than $100 million or more per year in 
costs.
  One of these reforms is the commonsense requirement that an agency, 
when it publishes a major rule, include a plan for reviewing how the 
rule is working within 10 years. A focus of that review is to determine 
whether it is possible, after the rule has been put into practice, to 
find new ways to lower the rule's costs.
  The gentleman's amendment speeds this process up, requiring review 
within 5 years, and increases Congress' oversight, requiring reports by 
agencies to Congress on their reviews. Most importantly, the amendment 
requires that, if an agency's report to Congress shows the rule's costs 
in practice are higher than anticipated at promulgation, the agency 
must institute a notice-and-comment process aimed at identifying 
revisions that can lower costs.
  This is a measure that can only strengthen the bill's effectiveness 
and help lower unnecessary burdens on the American people. I support 
the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank Mr. Johnson.
  I thank Ranking Member Conyers for the leadership that he provided 
the committee for so many years. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and 
Congressman Graves for working in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is common sense. It calls on the 
government to bring transparency to the major rules.
  Once an agency finalizes a major rule, that is the end of it. They 
are not required to review the benefits or the economic impacts. This 
amendment, however, holds the agency accountable by requiring that it 
look back and assess the costs and benefits of that rule after it has 
taken effect. Should the cost of the regulation exceed the proposed 
costs under the rule, then, under this amendment, this agency will 
report back the increase to the Congress. This amendment would 
facilitate a dialogue between the agency and the stakeholders. If the 
costs have gone up, then the agency must open up a comment period to 
hear the stakeholders and consider possible modifications or 
alternatives to reduce the cost and increase the benefits. We do that 
in Congress. Every time we pass a piece of legislation, we go back and 
fine tune the legislation, and I think we need to do the same thing 
here.
  Again, we must not allow regulations to run out of control. We should 
hold agencies accountable. This amendment will bring transparency and 
begin those conversations between stakeholders and the agencies.
  Again, I thank Congressman Graves for this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas, with whom I worked closely in developing this amendment, 
which was legislation we introduced last year and which had dozens of 
bipartisan cosponsors.
  In summary, this is an Article I issue. This ensures that when an 
agency tells Congress, they tell the American public that when the 
regulation is going to cost a certain amount to comply with, they are 
held accountable to that. This is about accountability. This is about 
transparency.
  My friend from Georgia mentioned that this was ``busywork.'' Mr. 
Chairman, I want you to think about that for a minute.
  This applies to major rules that are estimated to cost in excess of 
$100 million to comply with, and they find it offensive that we ask 
them to look back one time every 5 years for rules that cost American 
families over $100 million to comply with every single year?
  I am offended by that, and I am sure that millions and millions of 
American families are offended by that as well.
  It is all summarized by this, Mr. Chairman: since 2009, for the first 
time in recorded history, we have had a net loss in small businesses in 
the United States. Regulations are hidden taxes that impact our 
businesses, that impact our employment opportunities, and that drive 
jobs to other countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, in their quest to satisfy the 
big businesses that fund these campaigns, don't like regulations that 
protect the health, safety, and well-being of Americans, including 
children, including the elderly, the weak, the sick. They are trying to 
get rid of the Affordable Care Act; trying to kill those regulations; 
trying to kill regulations on Dodd-Frank, which is protecting people 
from financial ruin by Wall Street barons.
  This is an incessant march toward a deregulatory environment. We 
can't let it continue unabated. We must protest. We must speak out. We 
must do the right thing to protect the people of this country. For that 
reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chabot). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 10, strike ``agencies and'' and insert 
     ``agencies,''.
       Page 33, line 11, insert after ``easy to understand,'' the 
     following: ``and issues guidance in a manner sufficient to 
     provide at least 90 days for affected entities to take steps 
     to comply with such guidance,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his help 
and leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to make an already very good 
bill even better. Regulators regulate. That is what they do. Regulators 
regulate businesses, large and small, State and local governments, 
nonprofits, individuals, et cetera. These regulated entities often rely 
on guidance from agencies to become compliant with a new rule or 
regulation; but, occasionally, this guidance is offered far too late in 
the process, leaving entities with the decision to either move forward 
without guidance and face possible penalties, litigation, losses, or to 
wait until guidance is offered and then scramble to implement changes 
before the deadline, increasing the likelihood for mistakes and 
failure.
  My amendment seeks to ensure guidance is offered and available in a 
timely manner by instructing agencies to

[[Page 630]]

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to issue guidance at 
least 90 days before a rule or a regulation goes into effect so that 
affected entities have time to comply.
  As an example, companies recently experienced the hardships of late 
guidance from HHS through CMS. There is a company in Iowa and similar 
companies from around America that produce forms, using post acute 
healthcare reimbursements, including skilled nursing and home care, 
both of which receive funding through Medicare.
  CMS is responsible for setting rules for the reimbursement forms. 
Okay. Fine. CMS specified a new set of rules for forms going into 
effect at the beginning of the year. Okay. Great. This company and 
other companies waited for CMS guidance before printing and sending 
reimbursement forms to its customers, and this company waited and 
waited and waited; but 3 weeks before the effective date, this company 
and others like it hadn't heard anything from CMS on guidance or 
directions--crickets.

                              {time}  1615

  So at this point, they had to make a business decision. That is the 
reality. Either wait for CMS and fail to have the required forms to its 
customers in time for the new year or send the forms to print, cross 
your fingers, say a prayer, roll the dice, and hope they will later be 
found in compliance.
  They sent the forms to print knowing full well they would eat the 
cost if the forms did not comply. Losses, penalties, litigation, a 
soiled reputation--those are the real things the lack of guidance and 
notice causes. Thankfully, everything worked out in this situation, but 
in other situations, things haven't worked out. A few days after they 
sent the forms to print, CMS finally approved.
  However, this situation illustrates a broader problem that occurs too 
often transcending in other instances through the economy and needs to 
be addressed. We need to make sure that when we give agencies the power 
to effectively write law, we ensure compliance guidelines are clear-
cut, timely, and enforcement is fair.
  Allowing the regulatory process to continue as is and agencies to 
issue needed guidance at the last minute, we only further burden 
Americans in their organizations, businesses, these individuals in our 
districts.
  So I want to be clear what the amendment does not do. This amendment 
does not change a rule or regulation in any way. It does not direct the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to do or speak to anything 
else other than the timeliness issue I just described. It is pretty 
plain language. My amendment says, when guidance is forthcoming, it 
arrives in a timely manner.
  Mr. Chairman, it is past time for Congress to rein in and approve 
this process so our constituents aren't left with uncertainty, wringing 
their hands waiting for Washington, and can, instead, get to work. 
Let's get this fixed right now, Mr. Chairman.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend Mr. Young's 
amendment which establishes a 90-day compliance period for guidance 
documents when, in the underlying legislation, it makes clear that 
during any compliance period for guidance it is nonbinding. So I rise 
in opposition to this amendment which imposes an unnecessary and 
burdensome 90-day waiting period for agencies to issue guidance 
documents.
  Importantly, as a form of nonlegislative rule, guidance documents do 
not have the force of law and are not subject to the Administrative 
Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements. Section 104 of H.R. 5 
already clarifies that these documents are not legally binding and may 
not be relied upon by an agency as legal grounds for agency action.
  This provision additionally requires agencies to make this document 
available to the public and provide a plain and prominent statement 
that the document is not legally binding. Given the requirements that 
already exist in current law and the additional requirements imposed by 
title I of this bill, it is difficult to ascertain why an additional 
90-day compliance period for guidance that is not legally binding is 
warranted.
  Furthermore, in all cases, regulated entities have ample opportunity 
to challenge rules, including guidance, as ``arbitrary or capricious'' 
under the Administrative Procedure Act where an agency lacks statutory 
authority to issue the guidance or the guidance is otherwise legally 
unsound.
  Indeed, as Justice Elena Kagan noted in 2015 in Paralyzed Veterans v. 
Mortgage Bankers, the APA contains a variety of constraints on agency 
decisionmaking, the arbitrary and capricious standard being among the 
most notable.
  Accordingly, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I support his amendment. Agency guidance is a crucial part of our 
regulatory system--flexible because not legally binding, but needed so 
regulated entities can understand how best to comply with agency rules.
  Guidance, if it responds in a timely way to the regulated community's 
need for it, helps everything to function smoothly. But one thing that 
does not help is agency heel-dragging in the issuance of guidance as 
the regulated community comes up against legal or practical deadlines 
by which it needs to implement compliance measures. Too often agencies 
hurry up and wait to produce needed guidance, then tell those who 
waited long and hard for it to hurry up and respond, pronto. That can 
leave very little time for the regulated community to act before 
deadlines hit.
  To solve this problem, the amendment offers a simple but much-needed 
solution. It requires that, within ``good-guidance'' guidelines to be 
issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under the 
bill, there be guidelines for agencies generally to assure at least 90 
days for regulated entities to institute measures consistent with newly 
issued guidelines.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                 TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code) that will result 
     in a reduced incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma 
     attacks, or respiratory disease in children or seniors. The 
     provisions of law amended by this Act, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply 
     to such rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentlewoman

[[Page 631]]

from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to 
this troubling bill, a bill that proposes to erode the separation of 
power safeguards in the United States Constitution. My amendment would 
exempt from this bill rules that protect children and older Americans 
from cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory 
disease so that such rules are not irresponsibly delayed or denied.
  H.R. 5 unreasonably condemns every major rule, no matter its subject, 
to an early bureaucratic demise at the hands of the special interests. 
Many laws and regulations that are adopted and developed to protect the 
public health and protect costly chronic diseases really shouldn't be 
put on the back burner just because special interests can oftentimes 
muck up the gears of government here in Washington.
  For example, the Clean Air Act, which has been in place for over 40 
years, has been one of the most effective public health laws on the 
books. In 1970, at a time when smog was dense and visible in our cities 
and towns and industrial areas, our leaders took an important step to 
protect the public health and regulate emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants by adopting the Clean Air Act, with only one ``nay'' vote 
here in the entire Congress. Since then, agency rules and regulations 
have been adopted to implement the act based upon the best science. 
Those vital policies have improved our health, protected all Americans 
from harmful air pollution, such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur 
dioxide, and particle matter.
  This Republican bill, H.R. 5, largely, would end our ability to 
develop future safeguards for clean air. Toxic pollutants like ozone, 
which is a major component of smog, are linked to asthma, lung and 
heart disease, and result in thousands of deaths every year and up to 1 
million days of missed school. Our kids are particularly susceptible to 
this type of pollution because their lungs are still developing, and 
they are more likely to spend long periods outdoors, placing them at 
higher risk.
  The American Lung Association states that inhaling smog pollution is 
like getting a sunburn on your lungs and often results in immediate 
breathing trouble. The University of South Florida's Department of 
Child & Family Studies did a study in 2014 and said, in the State of 
Florida alone, there were 48,674 asthma emergency room visits by 
children and over 6,500 asthma hospitalizations.
  Any American who has been alive since the adoption of the Clean Air 
Act in the 1970s has an appreciation for the benefits of clean air. 
America is stronger and Americans are healthier because of the Clean 
Air Act.
  Let's not go backwards. This bill, if adopted, would undermine the 
Clean Air Act and so many other policies that lift and protect our 
neighbors.
  We still have work to do when it comes to the air that we breathe 
because, even with all of the progress we have made, many working class 
communities continue to bear the brunt of environmental pollution 
because oftentimes the only homes that are affordable are located near 
industrial sites. According to the NAACP, 78 percent of African 
Americans live within 30 miles of an industrial power plant and 71 
percent of African Americans live in counties that violate Federal air 
pollution standards; and the Environmental Defense Fund found that our 
Latino neighbors are three times more likely to die from asthma, often 
for the same reasons.
  If you establish such barriers to cleaning our air, it is not only 
our families and neighbors that will suffer, but it will also be the 
American economy. Far from being an economic burden, clean air 
protections in the U.S. have a great track record, demonstrating that 
economic growth and pollution reduction can go hand in hand. Since 
1970, we have cut harmful air pollution by about 70 percent, and the 
U.S. economy has more than tripled.
  I urge my colleagues to side with hardworking American families and 
not corporate polluters who love this bill. Don't prioritize polluter 
profits over science and the health and safety of the public, 
especially the most vulnerable among us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Young of Iowa). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment would strike from 
the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the core judicial 
review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. The resulting 
legislation, rather than restore an adequate framework of checks and 
balances against agency overreach and abuse, would perpetrate and 
perpetuate features among the worst of our current, runaway regulatory 
system. We cannot complete true regulatory reform without restoring to 
the judicial branch the vigorous powers of judicial review the 
amendment would strike.
  In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's critical 
rulemaking reforms all rules to reduce the incidence of cancer, 
premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory diseases in 
children and seniors.
  All of us support the reduction of morbidity and mortality among 
children and seniors. Rules to advance these goals, done properly, 
contribute substantially to our Nation's health and well-being, but the 
bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those 
goals. It simply assures the agencies issuing these types of rules--and 
all agency rulemaking in general--will avoid unnecessary and 
overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less costly regulation and 
guidance when necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the Castor amendment to protect children's health, to 
protect the health of our older neighbors. We value the air that we 
breathe.
  H.R. 5 would inject unnecessary barriers into the ability of our 
environmental agencies--heck, all of the agencies of government--to 
protect us.
  When it comes to the final bill itself, if you believe in checks and 
balances as a foundation of our constitutionally-based government, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I believe in the Constitution just like 
everyone else does, and primarily we, as congressmen and congresswomen, 
have a responsibility to make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats who 
have no experience in a lot of the areas where they are making these 
laws.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. 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 Florida 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. CICILLINE. 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 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                 TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule

[[Page 632]]

     (as such term is defined in section 551 of title 5, United 
     States Code) pertaining to the prevention of the transmission 
     of foodborne illness or assistance to domestic and foreign 
     food facilities to meet preventive-control requirements for 
     safety, such as hazard prevention practices in human and 
     animal food processing, packing, and storage facilities. The 
     provisions of law amended by this Act, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply 
     to such rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today promises to 
update the ways that agencies make and enforce their rules and 
regulations. But in many ways, it is a solution in search of a problem. 
When issuing a rule, Federal agencies must already adhere to rigorous 
analytical process of considering alternatives, justifying the cost of 
a rule, and considering input from stakeholders.
  Within this framework, agencies have been granted the necessary 
latitude to react quickly to urgent crises in consumer safety. It has 
preserved the safety of our food and our drinking water and has 
protected our families from defects in the products that we rely upon 
every day. However, the passage of this bill would put that safety and 
that protection at risk.
  With H.R. 5, we are getting six reform bills rolled into one. This 
sweeping regulatory bill would cumulatively add 60 new procedural and 
analytical requirements to the agency rulemaking process, invite 
frivolous litigation against agencies, empower special interests, and 
emphasize cost-saving over public protection.
  If enacted, H.R. 5 will needlessly create such an enormous burden on 
the rulemaking process that it threatens to hamstring agencies and 
discourage them from pursuing new rules at all. In its present form, 
this bill endangers our Nation's environmental, public health, 
workplace safety, and consumer financial security protections.
  My amendment would offer critical protection by exempting rules 
pertaining to the prevention of the transmission of foodborne illness 
or assistance to food facilities to meet preventive-control 
requirements for safety.
  Protecting consumers from dangerous food contamination is a worthy 
goal in and of itself. And this amendment would go even further by 
protecting jobs and businesses. For example, in 2015, Blue Bell 
Creameries suffered a deadly listeria contamination crisis and had to 
recall 8 million gallons of ice cream. After the company shut down most 
of its production, Blue Bell was forced to lay off 1,450 employees from 
their jobs, or 37 percent of their workforce, and an additional 1,400 
employees were furloughed.
  Chipotle is also still reeling from various outbreaks of E. coli, 
salmonella, and norovirus over 2015 and 2016, which caused widespread 
panic among customers and the company's shareholders. Despite marketing 
efforts to repair its reputation, Chipotle's sales have steadily 
declined, and it plans to open fewer stores in 2017. This, in turn, had 
a domino effect on Chipotle's paper bowl supplier who laid off 5 
percent of its employees because of decreased demand from Chipotle.
  Afterward, both Blue Bell and Chipotle took aggressive remedial 
steps, such as conducting deep cleansing of equipment and facilities, 
changing food preparation procedures, hiring food safety consultants, 
training employees, and temporarily suspending operations. The FDA 
responded by proposing proactive rules, such as having manufacturers 
come up with a plan to identify potential food safety problems and how 
to respond to them. The FDA also proposed a rule to establish standards 
for growing, harvesting, packing, and handling produce.
  Both these rules could greatly assist businesses in minimizing future 
food contamination and having to deal with the economic aftermath of an 
outbreak. However, under H.R. 5 in its current form, similar such FDA 
rules could be delayed by years or halted entirely. We can't afford to 
put consumer safety and our economy at risk while Congress entangles 
any real possibility for immediate and preventative action.
  I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to ensure 
that we protect the public and health and safety of our constituents.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Like the previous amendment, the gentleman's amendment 
would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and 
core judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. 
Faced with a runaway administrative state, we must not gut the bill's 
crucial reinforcements of judicial checks and balances against agency 
overreach and abuse. For this reason alone, the amendment should be 
rejected.
  In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's long-needed 
rulemaking reforms numerous types of food safety regulations. All of us 
support food safety. But the bill does nothing to frustrate the 
protection of food safety. In fact, it clearly calls upon regulatory 
agencies to achieve their statutory objectives in this and all areas. 
Beyond that, it simply ensures that agency rulemaking will avoid 
unnecessary and overreaching regulations and produce smarter, less 
costly regulation and guidance when necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
his comments, but the assertion that this does nothing to frustrate or 
jeopardize food safety is not true. This creates 60 new procedural and 
analytical requirements to agency action, and that will invite 
frivolous litigation, empower special interests, emphasize cost saving 
over public protection, and make implementation of these rules almost 
impossible.
  It is important to remember, Mr. Chairman, when issuing a rule, 
Federal agencies already are required to adhere to a rigorous 
analytical process of considering alternatives, justifying the cost of 
the rule, and considering input from stakeholders. I gave two examples 
in my earlier comments that demonstrate that there is a real role for 
the Federal Government in the implementation of rules to protect food 
safety. There are real consequences not only to the individuals harmed 
but to our economy by these sorts of events. This bill will not only 
frustrate that, in many instances, it will make it impossible. I urge 
my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my friend and 
NATO member. We have traveled together.
  A lot of the delay now is because of the agencies and how long they 
take to make decisions. With the premise behind our bills combined, 
agencies come up with an idea that they think will improve the quality 
of life, and that is what they should be doing. But then they 
immediately send it to us in the House, in Congress, and then we make 
the determination as to whether it is good law or it is bad law and 
apply it that way. We certainly have the time in the House, and I am 
sure the Senate has the time, too, to address these matters quickly and 
not delay it as long as the agency has been delaying making rules.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARINO. 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 Rhode Island 
will be postponed.

[[Page 633]]




           Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                 TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to 
     significantly improving the employment, retention, and wages 
     of workforce participants, especially those with significant 
     barriers to employment, such as persons with disabilities or 
     limited English proficiency. The provisions of law amended by 
     this Act, as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment to H.R. 5 which would exempt from the bill rules that improve 
the employment retention and wages of workforce participants, 
especially those with significant barriers to employment.
  When President Obama took office in 2009, he inherited the worse 
economic depression since the Great Depression. Since then, President 
Obama's ``North Star'' on domestic policy has long been to make the 
economy work for the middle class and for those fighting to join it. 
Notwithstanding historic austerity levels and a Republican Congress 
more interested in winning elections than putting Americans back to 
work or increasing wages, President Obama has largely achieved this 
goal, while rescuing the auto industry and signing tax cuts for middle 
class persons, as opposed to just simply big business.
  According to the leading economic data, private sector businesses 
have created more than 15 million new jobs. The unemployment rate has 
dropped well below 5 percent to the lowest point in nearly a decade, 
wages are rising, and the poverty rate has dropped to the lowest point 
since 1968. And more people have health insurance than ever before.
  This has all occurred during an administration that is pro 
environment, pro clean energy, pro workplace safety, pro medical care, 
pro Medicare, pro Medicaid, pro Social Security. In fact, during this 
time, our Nation has doubled its production of clean energy and reduced 
carbon emissions faster than any other advanced nation.
  Notwithstanding this progress, there is still much work to be done 
for millions of Americans in every part of our country who are out of 
work, underemployed, or have not seen significant wage growth 
postrecession. But they should understand it was the Republicans who 
caused that to happen by not wanting to work with the President and 
members of the Democratic Party to make things better for working 
people in this country.
  Congress should be working tirelessly now across party lines to find 
solutions to persistent unemployment and stagnant wages, such as a 
public infrastructure investment agenda that will increase productivity 
and domestic output while turning the page on our historic 
underinvestment in our Nation's roads, bridges, and educational 
institutions.
  Unfortunately, this bill, H.R. 5, is not one of those solutions. The 
Regulatory Accountability Act is nothing short of a train wreck for 
critical public health and safety protections that ensure that our air 
is clean, our water is pure, and that our workplace, vehicles, homes, 
and consumer products are safe.
  Freeing corporations from the costs of protecting Americans against 
harmful activity is not the right path forward to increasing employment 
and wages for all. It is a giveaway to the corporate sector that 
supports them. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. This amendment would strike from the bill the Separation 
of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review provisions 
of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It, too, should be rejected for 
those reasons.
  In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemakings 
reforms numerous types of rule related to employment and wages. But 
once again, the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. 
On the contrary, it would produce better rules, rules that are smarter 
and less costly, freeing resources for job creation and higher wages. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Mr. Johnson, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for his leadership on these issues, and the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for his persistent 
leadership, having gone over this bill any number of times. Let me 
mention that Mr. Johnson's amendment is vital because it deals with 
vulnerable workforce individuals, individuals with disabilities, 
limited English proficiency, and other requirements. And I would beg to 
differ with my good friend from Pennsylvania, 70 different elements of 
criteria that you will put these regulations through, you are simply 
trying to implode those who advocate for the rights of workers, unions, 
and others. Therefore, I would question the viability of trying to 
obstruct, helping these vulnerable workers. This is a very good 
amendment.
  Let me be very clear. Since 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 
million jobs. From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 
5.2 percent. We know that, as Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of 
Economic Advisers notes, demographic changes in labor force 
participation, primarily driven by a large increase in retirement by 
baby boomers that began in 2008, has consistently weighed on employment 
growth. It is quite different from when President Reagan was in. The 
labor force participation rate is low because of these variables.

                              {time}  1645

  These regulations are not going to improve that participation. The 
Obama recovery has been slower because, under Reagan, we realized the 
baby boomers were in their prime. Now the baby boomers are retiring.
  We need to provide opportunities for younger workers, minority 
workers, workers with disabilities; and this, H.R. 5, with all of these 
hoops that the regulation has to go through that are protecting or 
empowering workers or increasing the opportunities for workers is 
certainly going to thwart that growth.
  You cannot deny that this administration has seen growth with 
200,000-plus jobs per month over a series of years. I would argue that 
Mr. Johnson's amendment is a strong amendment. It promotes job growth, 
and it gives opportunities to many who are vulnerable in the workforce.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues have made several statements 
concerning economic activity that invite fact checks:
  First, they argue that the labor force participation rate is 
historically low, but as we all know, the labor force participation is 
affected by both long term trends and short term policies. As Jason 
Furman, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, notes, 
``demographic changes in labor force participation--primarily driven by 
a large increase in retirement by baby boomers that began in 2008--

[[Page 634]]

have consistently weighed on employment growth.''
  Second, they argue that the Obama recovery has been slower than the 
economic recovery under the Reagan Administration. But this argument is 
laughable. President Reagan's recovery benefited from the fact that 
many baby boomers were in the prime working years while President 
Obama's recovery has taken place in front of the backdrop of an aging 
U.S. population. More importantly, the economic lows of the Reagan 
Administration are not comparable to the mortgage-foreclosure crisis, 
which resulted in higher unemployment than any other period since the 
Great Depression.
  Finally, despite many bald assertions, my Republican colleagues have 
not satisfactorily explained how H.R. 5 will create a single job or 
responded to President Obama's unimpeachable jobs record. In fact, 
despite, strong economic headwinds and years of Republican 
obstructionism during the majority of his presidency, the U.S. economy 
is 11.5 percent larger than its peak before the 2008 economic crisis as 
of the third quarter of 2016.
  Since early 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs.
  From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 5.2 percent, 
the fastest annual growth on record, and the United States saw its 
largest one-year drop in the poverty rate since the 1960s.
  In closing, there is little evidence supporting my Republican 
colleagues' claims and if there is any doubt that the H.R. 5 will 
undermine workforce participation, my colleagues should support my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I simply would add that I ask my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  As far as the jobs increase, or lack thereof, that my colleague 
speaks of, we have had the slowest growth rate in jobs in the history 
of this country. There are millions of people that are unemployed that 
are not seeking unemployment benefits, and they are not taken into 
consideration in the unemployment rate because it is much higher than 
it is; and the mean family income is at a low as far back as 14 years 
ago.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARINO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
  Would the gentleman not count automation and technology as one of the 
elements and, as well, the idea of the retiring of baby boomers as part 
of the issue of growth? And can we not work together to question those 
particular elements so that we can collectively and collaboratively 
promote job growth?
  Mr. MARINO. Well, first of all, I would certainly enjoy working on 
job growth with the gentlewoman. We have worked on issues in the past.
  But the gentlewoman forgets about the technology that has created 
jobs. People have to write those programs. People have to build that 
hardware. They have to come up with very intense, very intricate ways 
to make the machinery, continue updating the software. My daughter is a 
software major in college, and the jobs there are abundantly available.
  So the jobs are there, but what I am hearing from people in my 
district and across the country is the regulations that have been 
imposed, not only by this administration but other administrations as 
well, are crushing particularly our small businesses.
  So if we can step back and eliminate these job-crushing regulations 
and take into consideration the economics involved, we are going to 
create more jobs, we are going to protect people, and we are going to 
protect the health of people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Ruiz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to H.R. 5 at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                 TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to the 
     safety of children's products or toys. The provisions of law 
     amended by this Act, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 5, which will ensure children's products are safe for use.
  In 2015, there were an estimated 254,200 toy-related injuries treated 
in emergency departments across the Nation. Tragically, 15 children 
were killed in toy-related incidents that same year. As an emergency 
medicine physician, I have treated children who have fallen victim to 
these accidents.
  H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act, prioritizes cheaper 
alternatives for companies over the safety of our children. To me, this 
is unconscionable. It is wrong. It is not the direction we should be 
taking our Nation.
  My amendment to H.R. 5 will ensure that an agency rule regarding the 
safety of children's products or toys is not delayed by the 
bureaucratic hurdles that H.R. 5 imposes on Federal agencies. My simple 
amendment provides a straightforward safety net for our sons and 
daughters across the country.
  Our children should always be our priority. The facts are clear: a 
vote against my amendment is a vote to put a company's bottom line 
above the safety of our children. So I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this commonsense amendment to protect our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, like other carve-out amendments just 
offered, this amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of 
Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review protections of 
the Regulatory Accountability Act. It should be rejected. We should not 
be settling for weak judicial review that produces rubber stamps of 
agency action. We should be voting for the strong judicial review 
reform in the bill that prevents judicial rubber stamps.
  Beyond that, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms 
children's toys and product safety rules. But again, the bill does 
nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will produce better 
rules, rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for 
job creation and higher wages. Smarter rules are precisely what we need 
to protect children's health and safety, and more jobs and higher wages 
are what are needed to help families provide for their children.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize what is at stake here. We 
are talking about delay or forgoing regulations that protect our 
children, regulations that give parents like me the peace of mind that 
when I buy a bottle for my daughter, Sky, I know it is safe for her to 
use, and that when I

[[Page 635]]

buy a product that is labeled age-appropriate for my daughter, Sage, I 
can reasonably expect it will not contain small parts that Sage could 
swallow and send her to the emergency room with an obstructed esophagus 
that will require emergency surgery.
  For me as a dad it is personal, and for our Nation it is essential. 
This is commonsense legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside partisanship, politics, and 
corporate greed and to think about the children in their lives who 
could be harmed by this bill. Vote ``yes'' on my amendment to protect 
children and save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the gentleman does not have 
the market cornered on worrying about the safety of our children. I 
think anybody in this room who has children has just as much concern 
for our children.
  What his amendment does is gut--it guts--regulations, and what our 
amendments do--and the way we should be handling these as Congress 
making any laws--will improve the quality of life and improve the 
protections.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUIZ. 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 California 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                 TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code) pertaining to 
     workplace health or safety at mining facilities which are 
     subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 
     U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or workplaces which are subject to the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
     seq.), and which is necessary to prevent or reduce the 
     incidence of work-related traumatic injury, cancer, or 
     irreversible lung disease. The provisions of law amended by 
     this Act, as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Regulatory 
Accountability Act, H.R. 5, if adopted, would exempt regulations 
proposed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration or the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, MSHA and OSHA, which are 
needed to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, 
or irreversible lung disease.
  I am deeply concerned that this legislation would impose layers of 
unnecessary procedures to the rulemaking process and provide incentives 
for frivolous litigation, while hindering workplace safety agencies 
trying to help keep workers safe.
  Current procedures that govern OSHA's rulemaking already involve an 
extensive review process and stakeholder engagement from small business 
review panels, risk assessments, economic feasibility determinations, 
public hearings, and multiple opportunities for public comment.
  According to the GAO, to meet these requirements, it takes OSHA 7 
years to issue a new safety standard. In fact, it required 18 years for 
OSHA to update a rule that reduces exposure to beryllium, a metal that 
causes irreversible lung disease, even though there was broad agreement 
between employers and unions on the new standard.
  H.R. 5 imposes 60 additional procedural steps in order to issue a new 
rule, on top of extensive layers of review already required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Data 
Quality Act, and numerous executive orders. The goal of adding these 
layers is obvious: to tie agencies such as OSHA and MSHA in red tape so 
they can't do their jobs protecting workers and improving workplace 
safety.
  One especially troubling part of the bill would require a super-
mandate that requires agencies to use the least cost alternative 
instead of the most protective rule. Nobody favors excessive cost, but 
this requirement overrides the carefully balanced requirements in OSHA 
that require life and limb must be fully protected, provided that the 
safety requirements are technically and economically feasible. That is 
the present law.
  The question that needs to be asked is: The least cost to whom and at 
what cost to others? What is the least cost mandate protection of 
workers? Is the least cost mandate secondary to worker safety in order 
to limit cost to corporations? And then again, who decides?
  Under the bill, some regulations could be delayed until the end of 
any litigation, the final determination in a lawsuit which, with trials 
and appeals, could take years. The bill prohibits the rules from going 
into effect until the end of the litigation. Now, normally, you can get 
an injunction, but that would require the court to consider the 
likelihood of success of the lawsuit and the potential harm done if the 
injunction is issued or not issued.
  Under H.R. 5, rules could exceed the least cost alternative, but only 
if the agency demonstrates that the additional benefits outweigh the 
additional costs. This eliminates a well-established test under OSHA 
which requires ``the most productive standard which is feasible,'' and 
that standard obviously just invites litigation which will delay the 
final rule for years.
  The problem with the least cost framework is that it would tilt the 
playing field to ensure the least cost for industry but at the expense 
of workers and the American public. According to expert witnesses 
before the Judiciary Committee, this bill will add another 2 or 3 years 
to the regulatory process, and these delays will allow preventable 
injuries and occupational diseases to continue unabated.
  Mr. Chairman, the premise behind this legislation is based on the 
erroneous assumption that regulations issued over the last 8 years have 
obstructed job growth; however, employment statistics do not bear this 
out. Since the end of the recession, the U.S. economy has gained almost 
16 million jobs, while establishing the longest consecutive months of 
job growth on record.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to ensure that, even if 
the bill passes, OSHA and MSHA will be able to prevent or reduce the 
incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, and irreversible lung disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect what my friend on the 
other side of the aisle has to say, but, again, I respectfully 
disagree.
  Once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike 
from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the 
essential judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability 
Act. That would have but one effect: to preserve the freedom to run 
riot that Washington

[[Page 636]]

bureaucrats have enjoyed for decades as they have racked up roughly $2 
trillion in regulatory burdens on the American people.
  The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms 
workplace safety rules issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration to reduce traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease.
  I would urge my colleagues to read the bill and listen more closely. 
The bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will 
produce better rules, smarter rules, less costly rules. That will free 
up resources for desperately needed job creation, meaning more workers 
will have more safe workplaces in which to earn a living.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will preserve the ability of the 
executive branch to promulgate rules, which will save lives and avoid 
preventable deaths and disease. A vote for the amendment is a vote for 
a safe workplace. I would hope that the amendment would be adopted and 
save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                 TITLE VII--EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES

     SEC. 701. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code) made pursuant to 
     the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 
     Act, or the amendments made by that Act. The provisions of 
     law amended by this Act, as in effect on the day before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply to such rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, last May, Democrats and Republicans came 
together to pass the first major environmental law in decades, the 
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Before 
this reform, it had been widely acknowledged that the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, or TSCA, was broken. The law was hampered by litigation 
since shortly after it was passed in 1976, and was rendered almost 
completely ineffective.
  It has only been 7 months since over 400 Members voted for this 
reform, which requires a number of new rulemakings by the EPA.
  A primary motivation to reform TSCA was to remove procedural hurdles 
that were preventing the EPA from regulating dangerous chemicals. But 
the bill before us today would impose new, unnecessary obstacles in the 
rulemaking process, which will impede agencies that already are 
struggling with shrinking budgets and time constraints.
  Even some of the Members that had concerns with TSCA reform, myself 
included, would agree that it is imperative that these rulemakings go 
forward efficiently in order to protect public health and to give the 
private sector the certainty that it asks for when it supported the 
reform effort.
  Unlike 233 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I did not 
vote for this bill; but I do firmly believe that the rulemakings 
required by this law must be done effectively and quickly. 
Unfortunately, the bill before us today would undermine that process. 
For the record, I do not believe any amendments will fix the underlying 
bill, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill later today.
  While Congress has moved on to other priorities, the EPA has been 
hard at work implementing the law as Congress intended. Since being 
signed into law in June, the EPA has already put into place new 
processes to review new chemicals, which is exactly what this House 
instructed them to do.
  A number of rulemakings will soon get underway focused on how the EPA 
prioritizes chemicals for evaluation and how it will conduct risk 
evaluations. Other rules regarding the EPA's chemical inventory and the 
process for collecting fees will also be needed.
  The Members that worked on TSCA reform deferred many of these 
procedural decisions to the EPA because we lacked the expertise 
necessary to determine every detail of the most effective, streamlined 
regulatory process.
  We are not toxicologists or chemists, so we empowered the scientists 
that do this work to receive public feedback and create regulations, 
based on congressional intent, within a reasonable amount of time.
  It is clear that an overwhelming number of Members of the House 
believe that the EPA needed these tools when we passed the Lautenberg 
bill to fix the EPA's chemical program. Let's not tie the agency's 
hands as it seeks effective implementation. We have seen what happens 
with a broken chemical safety law. Let's not go back to that.
  I would also caution against the bill's requirement to choose the 
least costly regulatory option. People familiar with TSCA will know the 
term ``least burdensome,'' which required the EPA to select the 
restriction that was demonstrated to be the least burdensome to address 
identified risks.
  In practice, this requirement was so onerous that the EPA was not 
even able to restrict known carcinogens like asbestos. The Lautenberg 
bill ended this requirement. Let's not reinstate this problem for our 
agencies.
  Personally, I do not believe my amendment goes far enough. We should 
exempt every major environmental law responsible for protecting 
Americans' air, water, and land from this bill.
  We have seen in many cases that these rules do not hurt the economy. 
They protect public health and provide much greater benefits to society 
than costs.
  Many of our bedrock environmental statutes require agencies to review 
and update their rules periodically. Members of Congress should not 
prevent an agency from simply doing the job that is required of it 
under the law.
  But in terms of this amendment and TSCA reform, Congress knew exactly 
what would be asked of the EPA in order to carry out the Frank R. 
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act when we passed it 
by a vote of 403-12 just a few months ago. We cannot tell the EPA to do 
something and then tie its hands and expect it to get it done.
  This amendment is simple. Do Members of this body want to give our 
regulatory agencies the tools they need to implement the laws that 
Congress has passed? And, in my view, it should not matter if these 
laws were passed 6 months ago or 60 years ago. Or should we make it 
more difficult to implement effective rulemakings, even when there is 
legislative consensus about the need for them?
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 637]]


  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, one last time, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers 
Restoration Act and the judicial review provisions of the Regulatory 
Accountability Act. One last time, that attempt should be rejected.
  We need a strong judiciary, not a supine one, to stand up to agency 
overreach and abuse and protect the liberty and property of the America 
from the long hands of Washington's restless bureaucrats.
  The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms 
rules issued under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st 
Century Act. Chemical safety is important to all of us. Congress worked 
hard on chemical safety legislation. But it is smarter regulations, 
supported by sounder science, at less cost that will best produce 
chemical safety under that act. That is precisely the kind of 
regulation that will happen once the 21st century rulemaking reforms in 
the Regulatory Accountability Act become law.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. 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 gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 42, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 3 
     on page 45.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, today, this Republican Congress is taking 
a short break from trying to destroy our healthcare system to try to 
destroy the rest of the Federal Government.
  H.R. 5 is nothing more than Republicans seeking to micromanage the 
regulatory process to death. They claim they only want good government. 
In reality, they want no government at all. They want to wrap Federal 
agencies in so much red tape that they won't be able to move to protect 
our health, our safety, or our natural resources.
  Language in title III tries to prevent Federal land managers from 
actually managing Federal lands. This language would make land managers 
jump through the same procedural hoops over and over again just to put 
a new land management plan in place. These new requirements are 
completely redundant, which is, of course, the point.
  Federal land management plans already go through extensive review, 
including by the public, before they are ever even implemented. One way 
we know this is that the House Republicans complain constantly about 
how long it takes Federal agencies to come up with a decision. Yet, 
here they are claiming that this Republican Congress knows best how our 
public lands and resources should be managed.
  Let's stop and look at the record. Last Tuesday, almost every single 
Republican Member of this House voted for a change in our House 
standing rules to calculate the value of all Federal lands as zero for 
accounting purposes. Yes, House Republicans agree that all Federal 
lands are essentially worthless.
  Then, on Thursday of this week, 229 House Republicans voted against 
an amendment I offered to another bill to declare that climate change 
is real. Yes, 95 percent of House Republicans voted to deny a settled 
scientific fact.
  Yet, here we are today with the same House Republicans who deny 
science; the same House Republicans who think public lands are 
worthless, claiming they know how to manage these public lands.
  Science deniers and those who think our public lands have no value 
have no credibility when they bring legislation to this floor claiming 
that they want to improve public land management. As with health care, 
as with so many things, they don't want to improve it; they want to 
destroy it.
  Congressional Republicans have proved themselves completely incapable 
of building or preserving anything. They are only interested in tearing 
things down, starting with health, safety, and environmental 
protections for our people and our communities.
  This bill would needlessly tip the scales in favor of corporate 
polluters who want to be in power to ruin our public lands, taking the 
resources and the profits for themselves, leaving the American people 
with the mess and the consequences.
  My amendment strikes the section of this bill intended to turn our 
public land management process into nothing more than a board meeting 
of the American Petroleum Institute.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, a longstanding position of the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has been that 
land management plans developed by the Forest Service and by the Bureau 
of Land Management are rules and that they are subject to analysis 
under the RFA. The same conclusion--that a land resource management 
plan is a rule--has been reached by the Government Accountability 
Office.
  Given the potentially significant consequences to small businesses 
that rely on public lands and small communities that border those 
lands, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management should 
assess the impacts of their plans on these small entities. That is all 
this does.
  We are saying: How is this going to affect small businesses? Seventy 
percent of the new jobs created in America are created by small 
businesses? Should we care about what the bureaucrats are doing, how it 
affects those folks that are creating all these jobs?
  Common sense says yes, we ought to do that.
  This bill already includes a reform to prepare those agencies to 
prepare regulatory flexibility analyses when they are developing 
changes to resource management plans to determine how small businesses 
and small communities would be affected.

                              {time}  1715

  Striking this provision from the bill would do away with a needed 
reform for small businesses, such as farmers and ranchers and their 
small communities, especially those located in the Western United 
States, which contains the vast majority of Federal lands.
  I would also note that my esteemed colleague talks about Republicans 
trying to destroy health care in this country. That is obviously 
absurd. We are trying to save health care. We are trying to make sure 
that Americans aren't forced to pay a heck of a lot more and have 
higher deductions, things they can't afford. Plans right now they are 
in, they are paying for plans and oftentimes get zero health care out 
of those plans because the deductibles are now so high under ObamaCare 
that they can't even use it.
  I think there are a whole lot of people, when this was forced through 
this Congress on a purely partisan vote by my colleagues, the Democrats 
at that time, and by this President, there were a lot of Republicans 
who would have loved to have joined with them to do something to help 
people get health care who didn't have it. That is a worthy cause. But 
that could have been

[[Page 638]]

done without screwing up everybody else's health care in this country. 
That is what they failed to do when they did this. We are hoping, in a 
bipartisan way, we can work together to improve health care for lots of 
folks in this country. We will see if that is going to work out or not.
  I would also note that there is nobody on this side of the aisle who 
thinks we need no government at all, we need no regulations, we need no 
rules; but we don't want to overregulate the job creators in this 
country so that they can't create jobs. Those jobs that people don't 
get, those are real people; or people who get knocked out of that 
employment are real people, and they have families. We ought to be 
supporting them. Overregulation kills those jobs.
  I would finally note, relative to climate change, what we are saying 
is that if we are going to do something, let's do it in a smart manner. 
Let's not try to save some things and then knock thousands, probably 
millions of Americans out of their jobs. There is a smart way of doing 
it and there is a wrong way of doing it. We would like to do it the 
smart way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my esteemed 
colleague. We have to get past the point where we are just talking 
about repeal. As the President so eloquently said last night, if there 
is something that is going to improve the health and well-being of the 
American people relative to the Affordable Care Act, then bring it 
forward. We all have been waiting patiently for the Republican majority 
to bring something forward that not only repeals but replaces. We are 
still waiting.
  In terms of this amendment, the resource management plans are the 
backbone for every action and approved use on BLM land. It is about 
scoping. It is about public input, collaborative with State, local, 
tribal, and user groups across the spectrum, and that is the process 
that is in place now, a process that deserves to be continued, 
ratified, and protected.
  As far as the issue of climate change, the President eloquently said 
last night that we should go forward on the issue of climate change, 
putting science and reason as a priority on how we have that 
discussion. Once the majority is prepared to deal with science and 
reason, I think our side of the aisle is willing to do so as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 15 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Posey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in part A of House Report 115-2.
  Mr. POSEY. 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 75, line 3, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 75, line 13, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 75, insert after line 13 the following:
       ``(D) a list of all influential scientific information 
     disseminated or expected to be disseminated by the agency 
     relating to the rule, including any peer review plans for the 
     information, including--
       ``(i) the date the information or peer review was or is 
     expected to be received by the agency;
       ``(ii) the date the information or peer review was 
     publically disclosed or is expected to be publically 
     disclosed, and, if that date is altered in subsequent 
     reports, a brief explanation for the change; and
       ``(iii) the Internet address of the information or peer 
     review completed and disclosed or of where the information or 
     peer review will be found, once completed and disclosed.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 33, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about transparency and 
accountability. I rise to urge my colleagues to support it.
  When an agency decides to write a rule or revise an old one, they are 
sometimes required to share technical or scientific information to 
support their proposal. For many years, scientific research has relied 
upon the peer review process to ensure quality, integrity, and 
objectivity of published work. Peer review is when scientists open 
their research to the scrutiny of other experts in their field in order 
to receive feedback, criticism, and ensure their conclusions are sound.
  Unfortunately, when peer reviews of information return unfavorable 
comments or raise unforeseen issues with the quality of work, some 
agencies have acted to silence or hide the critiques. This, of course, 
is bad science, and it results in bad public policy.
  A recent example of this abuse occurred during a highly technical 
rulemaking proceeding in which an agency relied heavily upon a single 
study that many criticized as profoundly inadequate. The agency 
commissioned two peer reviews of the study, which were completed and 
returned 2 weeks into the comment period for the public. However, after 
both scholars submitted highly critical reviews that echoed the 
concerns of the many commentators, sadly, the agency withheld the 
release of their work to the public. When the agency finally did 
release the information as required by law, it was on the Friday that 
marked the very last day of the comment period as part of a massive 
document dump that buried the negative reviews.
  The political cherry-picking of scientific information and 
manipulation of the public record harms both the quality of Federal 
regulations as well as the overall integrity of the rulemaking 
proceeding. When Federal agencies distribute scientific research 
supporting a proposed rule, the public and those affected by it deserve 
to be certain that the science is of the highest quality and have a due 
process right to comment meaningfully on the rules the science intends 
to support.
  My amendment will help protect this basic principle of good 
government and ensure fairness in Federal rulemaking by requiring that 
the public be provided with a clear timeline for disclosure of any 
influential scientific information. The amendment will also require 
agencies to offer an explanation if they revise the anticipated public 
release date of peer reviews. Simply put, the Federal agency will no 
longer be able to shield from the public view the existence of 
information that is central to evaluating a proposed rule.
  We cannot continue to allow the Federal agencies to march toward a 
predetermined outcome at the expense of sound science and policy. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which requires that 
an agency publish a list of scientific information relating to a rule 
or expected to relate to the rule for each rule that an agency expects 
to propose for the following year. I am concerned that this amendment 
would create unintended consequences and operate as a one-way ratchet 
to slow down and stop the rulemaking process by requiring burdensome 
disclosures and creating options for procedural gridlock.
  Agencies are already required to publish relevant data in support of 
a rule during these rulemaking processes. Rules that do not appear to 
be based on

[[Page 639]]

a reasoned analysis of relevant data may be vacated by reviewing courts 
as arbitrary or capricious. Moreover, data acquired through federally 
funded research is already accessible to researchers who have a 
legitimate purpose.
  I am also concerned that because this amendment does not define 
scientific information or clarify the scope of this publication 
requirement, peer reviewed materials may be taken out of context or 
otherwise misused for political purposes. In so doing, this requirement 
may chill feedback in the scientific community, undermine agencies' 
ability to adopt the best rules possible, or otherwise manufacture 
delays in the rulemaking process.
  Any additional requirements in this area should strengthen, rather 
than weaken, the process of science-based rulemaking. Given these 
concerns, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, most members of the public don't know what a 
rule is. Rules are laws made by unelected and unaccountable 
bureaucrats.
  We collected 4 years' worth of Daily Registers in my office. Those 
are executive orders, rules, proposed rules, changes to rules. I ask 
people how big they think the stack is. I get answers 4 feet, 6 feet, 7 
feet. Well, actually, in 4 years' time, the stack was 7 stacks over my 
head--over 70 linear feet of laws made by unelectable, unaccountable 
people.
  The public thinks we make the laws. Most of the laws we don't make. 
We allow unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make the laws; and the 
very least we can do to protect the public is ensure that we have 
transparency and accountability for their procedures, and that is 
exactly what this amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, before I close, I include in the Record a letter from a 
leading policy research institution that highlights the need for 
legislation like my amendment that will improve the public peer review 
process in our Federal agencies.

         Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public 
           Policy Studies,
                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.

     Re Republic Peer Review.

     Speaker Paul Ryan,
     Washington, DC.
     Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As both of 
     you know first-hand, developing and implementing good public 
     policy is no easy task. The issues before regulatory agencies 
     are often complex and technical, and therefore resolution 
     benefits from input from the best minds both in and out of 
     government. Yet, simply because someone writes a lengthy 
     report on a particular topic does not automatically mean that 
     their analysis is valid. No presumption of scientific 
     legitimacy can be afforded when making good public policy. 
     Instead, if policymakers are going to rely on a particular 
     study, then that study deserves to be critiqued first via 
     public peer review in a dispassionate manner to see if the 
     prescriptions and findings hold up. This public peer review 
     is exceedingly important when deciding controversial matters, 
     particularly because reviewing courts are loath to second-
     guess expert administrative agency's policy decisions--
     choosing instead to limit themselves only to questions of 
     law. (See, e.g., USTelecom v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674, 697 (D.C. 
     Cir. 2016) (we do not ``inquire whether `some or many 
     economists would disapprove of the [agency's] approach' 
     because `we do not sit as a panel of referees on a 
     professional economics journal, but as a panel of generalist 
     judges obliged to defer to a reasonable judgment by an agency 
     acting pursuant to congressionally delegated authority.'')) 
     As such, the peer review process allows the public to better 
     hold government to account and results in more informed 
     policymaking.
       Unfortunately, while the Office of Management and Budget 
     mandates peer review, many administrative agencies do not 
     take the peer review process seriously. By way of example, I 
     am attaching an op-ed I wrote in The Hill last year 
     demonstrating how the Federal Communications Commission 
     flagrantly violated the public's due process rights by hiding 
     until the very last moments the highly-critical results of 
     the agency's peer review of an outside economic study which 
     the agency intended to be the foundational document to impose 
     price regulation for Business Data Services. By any account, 
     such behavior is not an example of ``good'' government. 
     Legislation to improve the public peer review process at 
     federal agencies is therefore both welcome and necessary.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lawrence J. Spiwak,
     President, The Phoenix Center.
                                  ____


                     [From The Hill, July 7 , 2016]

           The FCC's Lack of Respect for Due Process, Part II

                        (By Lawrence J. Spiwak)

       Since Tom Wheeler took over the chairmanship of the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC), we have seen one assault 
     after another on American's procedural due process rights. In 
     addition to the well-documented improprieties with the White 
     House during the Open Internet debate, Wheeler, among other 
     transgressions, has attempted to force nonprofits to reveal 
     their donors in strict violation of Supreme Court precedent, 
     hired advocates who had filed in significant FCC dockets as 
     an interested party to come into the commission to supervise 
     those very dockets, and attempted to hold a FCC ``town hall'' 
     in which he had invited an outside party to participate and 
     comment on a yet-to-be-released item during the ``sunshine'' 
     period.
       Wheeler is now at it again, this time in the context of the 
     FCC's attempt to impose stringent price regulation for 
     ``business data services'' (BDS). Let's look at this shameful 
     timeline. Sometime last late last year, the FCC started 
     working on a new regulatory framework for BDS. At the heart 
     of the commission's new regulatory framework was an economic 
     appendix prepared by an outside expert, Marc Rysman of Boston 
     University.
       On April 14, 2016, approximately two weeks before the FCC 
     was to vote on the formal ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' 
     containing its proposed BDS regulatory framework, the agency 
     requested outside peer review (as required by law) of the 
     Rysman Appendix from Andrew Sweeting of the University of 
     Maryland and Tommaso Valletti of Imperial College Business 
     School (U.K.). Sweeting responded on April 26, 2016 (12 days 
     after the peer review request); and Valletti responded on 
     April 28, 2016 (14 days after the peer review request). 
     Neither peer review was particularly kind to Rysman's 
     analysis.
       On April 28, 2016, the FCC voted on its ``Notice of 
     Proposed Rulemaking'' to provide an aggressive new regulatory 
     paradigm for BDS (hereinafter ``BDS NPRM''). Due to editorial 
     privileges, however, the FCC did not formally release the BDS 
     NPRM until May 2, 2016. Although the commission had the 
     Sweetling and Valletti critiques in hand during the editorial 
     privilege window and could have incorporated them into the 
     final BDS NPRM, the FCC declined. In fact, the FCC made no 
     mention of either critique of the Rysman Appendix in its 
     final BDS NPRM, choosing instead to keep the existence of the 
     Sweeting and Valletti reviews secret from the public.
       On June 28, 2016--almost two months to the day since the 
     BDS NPRM was first voted upon and the very date initial 
     comments were due the FCC finally made the existence of the 
     Sweeting and Valletti peer reviews public. Adding to the 
     commission's subterfuge, the agency chose the same day also: 
     (1) to perform a massive data dump into the record; (2) to 
     release an updated version of the Rysman Appendix; and (3) to 
     introduce three new staff studies (the same staff which are 
     charged with writing the final BDS rules) purporting to 
     address, and ultimately correct, the shortcomings of the 
     Rysman Appendix. In so doing, the FCC made sure that no one 
     could address either these data or studies in their initial 
     comments.
       For those who care about the integrity of our government 
     institutions, the FCC's constant disregard for due process is 
     deeply troubling. As the D.C. Circuit recently wrote in 
     Association of American Railroads v. Department of 
     Transportation (2016):
       No clause in our nation's Constitution has as ancient a 
     pedigree as the guarantee that ``[n]o person . . . shall be 
     deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of 
     law.'' U.S. CONST. amend. V. Its lineage reaches back to 1215 
     A.D.'s Magna Carta, which ensured that ``[n]o freeman shall 
     be . . . disseised of his . . . liberties, or . . . otherwise 
     destroyed . . . but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by 
     the law of the land.'' Magna Carta, ch. 29, in 1 E. Coke, The 
     Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England 45 
     (1797). Since the Fifth Amendment's ratification, one theme 
     above all others has dominated the Supreme Court's 
     interpretation of the Due Process Clause: fairness. Id. at 
     27.
       Now to be clear, as Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote in 
     Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934), while ``[d]ue process of law 
     requires that the proceedings shall be fair . . . fairness is 
     a relative, not an absolute, concept. It is fairness with 
     reference to particular conditions or particular results.'' 
     That said, as the D.C. Circuit again affirmed just last month 
     in U.S. Telecom Association v. FCC, it remains black-letter 
     law that ``[u]nder the [Administrative Procedure Act], an 
     NPRM must `provide sufficient factual detail and

[[Page 640]]

     rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to 
     comment meaningfully.'''
       As the FCC has by any reasonable account deprived parties 
     with the opportunity to comment meaningfully upon the 
     fundamental economic analysis and data upon which it intends 
     to use to impose rate regulation for BDS, I think it is safe 
     to argue that under even the broadest light, the agency's 
     conduct in this case is a prima facie violation of procedural 
     due process.
       What is the FCC so afraid of? Is it truly scared to have 
     substantive debate on the issues? Is the outcome so 
     predetermined that it has to resort to kangaroo court tactics 
     that would make North Korean leader Kim Jong-un proud? 
     Indeed, it is a bit ironic (if not outright hypocritical) 
     that while the FCC is doing everything it can to prevent 
     meaningful comments about a highly complex topic, the Obama 
     administration is doing everything in its power to create a 
     culture which encourages robo-comments which offer up nothing 
     substantive to the debate other than to promote ideological 
     sophistry from both sides of the political spectrum. And we 
     wonder why (rhetorically) the FCC is now regarded as an 
     ``economics-free zone,'' as an AT&T executive noted?
       Given the D.C. Circuit's recent proclivity to grant the FCC 
     great deference, no matter how many liberties it may take, 
     restoring the rule of law at the FCC will ultimately fall 
     into the hands of Congress. Fortunately, the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee has scheduled yet another oversight 
     hearing next week with all five members of the Commission in 
     attendance, where perhaps some sunlight can be used as a 
     disinfectant. I therefore encourage the Commerce Committee 
     members and staff--from both sides of the aisle--to do their 
     homework, come to the hearing prepared, and call Chairman 
     Wheeler out on the carpet.

  Mr. POSEY. As the letter states: ``No presumption of scientific 
legitimacy can be afforded when making good public policy.'' 
Unfortunately, many administrative agencies make this assumption and do 
not take seriously the peer review process. For that reason, I once 
again urge my colleagues to support this good government proposal for 
transparency and accountability that will help protect the integrity of 
the Federal rulemaking process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    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 
115-2 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Castor of Florida.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Ruiz of California.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Tonko of New York.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  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 Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               AYES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     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
     Perlmutter
     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
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--185

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Harris
     Lamborn
     Mulvaney

[[Page 641]]


     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1749

  Messrs. VARGAS, THOMPSON of California, WELCH, JEFFRIES, O'HALLERAN, 
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, and Mr. PAYNE changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. REED changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Peterson

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Peterson) 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 260, 
noes 161, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               AYES--260

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     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
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--161

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Frankel (FL)
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gottheimer
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     LaMalfa
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Payne
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Rokita
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     Lamborn
     Mulvaney
     Nolan
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1755

  Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. O'HALLERAN and SCHNEIDER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 36, I mistakenly 
recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
  Mr. SOUZZI. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 36, I mistakenly 
recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor) 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 231, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster

[[Page 642]]


     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
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     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--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     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)
     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
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Goodlatte
     Harris
     Lamborn
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Stivers
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1759

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 37.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline) 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 190, 
noes 232, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               AYES--190

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Beutler
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance

[[Page 643]]


     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     Lamborn
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1802

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 234, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               AYES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     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
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     Lamborn
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1806

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Ruiz

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ruiz) 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 190, 
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               AYES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal

[[Page 644]]


     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1811

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) 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 195, 
noes 227, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 41]

                               AYES--195

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lance
     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
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     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

[[Page 645]]


     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     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
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Walker
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1816

  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Tonko

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 235, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               AYES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1820

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) 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.

[[Page 646]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 236, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               AYES--185

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     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.
     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)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     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

                               NOES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     DeGette
     DesJarlais
     Harris
     Mulvaney
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1824

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. 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. Byrne, 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. 5) to 
reform the process by which Federal agencies analyze and formulate new 
regulations and guidance documents, to clarify the nature of judicial 
review of agency interpretations, to ensure complete analysis of 
potential impacts on small entities of rules, and for other purposes, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 33, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were 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

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

       Mrs. Demings moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 36, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 
     37, line 9.
       Page 38, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     39, line 12.
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

   TITLE VII--PROTECTING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR 
                      AMERICANS OVER THE AGE OF 65

     SEC. 701. PROTECTING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 
                   FOR AMERICANS OVER THE AGE OF 65.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply in the case of a rule (as such term is defined in 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code), pertaining to 
     the provision of health and financial security for persons 
     ages 65 and over by significantly reducing out-of-pocket 
     medication costs for prescription drugs for plans under the 
     Medicare program under part D of title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101 et seq.), regardless of the 
     person's income, medical history, or health status. The 
     provisions of law amended by this Act, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall apply 
     to such rules.

  Mr. MARINO (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to

[[Page 647]]

committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout my 27 years of law enforcement experience, I 
protected and served my community, and I stand here today to protect 
the most vulnerable of seniors in central Florida, and seniors all 
around this Nation.
  We have a responsibility to see that seniors are not put in a 
position where they will have to choose between buying food or buying 
their medication, which was the case before the Affordable Care Act. We 
must resist all efforts to reopen the Medicare part D prescription drug 
coverage doughnut hole. This doughnut hole required seniors to pay full 
price for their prescription drugs after they reach their catastrophic 
threshold.
  Research found, because of this doughnut hole, seniors would put 
their health at risk because they could not afford to pay the 
prescriptions, which ultimately lead to higher healthcare costs. 
Because of the Affordable Care Act, this doughnut hole is being 
completely phased out of the Medicare part D prescription drug program 
by the year 2020.
  Since the ACA passed in 2010, closing the doughnut hole has saved our 
seniors more than $23.5 billion on their prescription drugs. We know 
this is working. Florida seniors enrolled in the program are now saving 
an average of $987 a year because of closing the loophole.

                              {time}  1830

  We know what $987 means to the average senior on Medicare. We also 
know that if these coverage gap discounts disappeared, part D enrollees 
would have to pay $3,725 for the time period they are in the doughnut 
hole. This $3,725 represents nearly 15 percent of a Medicare enrollee's 
income.
  With too many Floridians and seniors across the Nation struggling to 
make ends meet, I strongly believe that Congress can do more to make 
sure we do not go backwards and reopen this doughnut hole. No one 
should ever have to choose between food or medicine.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the livelihood and dignity of our 
most vulnerable seniors and vote for my amendment to protect access to 
affordable prescription drugs for older Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, this bill's bold reforms deliver the heart 
of the regulatory reform this Nation desperately needs; and I cannot 
overstate how desperately we need it because, after 8 years of the 
Obama administration's blowout administrative state, what do we have?
  We have an economy that for 8 straight years has failed to produce 
enough good, new, full-time jobs to sustain growth and restore dignity 
to the unemployed. We have 92 million Americans outside the workforce, 
a level not seen since the Carter years. We have nearly $2 trillion of 
American wealth commandeered each year to be spent as Washington 
bureaucrats demand, through runaway regulation--$2 trillion. This is 
more money than the GDP of all but eight countries in the world.
  We do not need a regulatory state that is that size; we need a 
regulatory system that is cut down to size. And lest we ever forget, we 
need a regulatory system that never again allows a runaway executive 
branch to do what the Obama administration did: use a pen and a phone 
to undertake an end run around Congress and force on the American 
people job-crushing policies that their elected representatives in 
Congress never supported.
  This motion to recommit turns a blind eye to all of that. It says to 
the runaway administrative state: Keep on running as fast as you can; 
we don't care. It says to the American people: Sit down and be quiet. 
Washington bureaucrats are your betters, and you need to just keep 
doing what they tell you to do.
  Well, the hardworking taxpayers have spoken and yanked the boots of 
unelected bureaucrats off the throats of hardworking Americans. Enough 
is enough. Support this bill. Reject this motion to recommit. Show the 
American people that they come first, not bureaucrats in Washington.
  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

  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               AYES--190

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson

[[Page 648]]


     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Harris
     MacArthur
     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1839

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 44.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 183, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               YEAS--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     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
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     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
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--183

     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
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     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.
     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
     Nadler
     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
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     DeLauro
     Gabbard
     Harris
     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rice (SC)
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1846

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

                          ____________________