[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3165-3182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME 
                                  ACT


                             general leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 998.

[[Page 3166]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 150 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. 998.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1421


                     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. 998) to provide for the establishment of a process for the review 
of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes, with Mr. Palmer in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 998, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations 
that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act, also known as the SCRUB Act, was 
introduced by our colleague Jason Smith. I happen to be a cosponsor of 
this bill, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. We rise 
in support of this bill, the SCRUB Act.
  Regulatory accumulation is a significant problem for the Federal 
Government. Year after year, Federal agencies add regulation after 
regulation, piling on to an already very complex and crowded regulatory 
system. The Code of Federal Regulations, also known as the CFR, has 
some 178,000 pages. These are the regulations that you are supposed to 
understand if you are in a business--small business, big business, 
medium-sized business. It contains more than 1 million regulatory 
restrictions. Every year the Federal Government adds, on average, 
nearly 12,000 new regulations on top of those.
  The regulatory accumulation has considerable impact upon our economy. 
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, regulatory 
compliance hurts economic growth by pulling nearly $1.8 trillion out of 
the economy. Regulations are particularly hard on small businesses that 
don't have the legal resources and the wherewithal to understand all of 
the complexities. Many small- and medium-sized businesses will be doing 
things that they don't necessarily even know or understand could be 
problematic.
  There is room for regulation, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting 
there should be no regulation, but we are trying to clean up some of 
this regulation and weed out the good from the bad. The SCRUB Act will 
enable the government to do so, and that is why I appreciate our 
colleague Jason Smith for championing and bringing this bill to the 
floor again.
  The SCRUB Act establishes a bipartisan--and I can't say that enough, 
a bipartisan--Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to conduct a 
comprehensive review of Federal regulation. The commission's goal is to 
reduce regulatory costs to the economy by at least 15 percent.
  The act charges the commission with identifying outdated, obsolete, 
and unnecessary regulations in need of repeal or amendment. The 
commission gives priority to those regulations that are 15 years old 
and older. I think that is an appropriate direction that they should 
go.
  The commission will consist of regulatory experts chosen on a 
bipartisan basis and confirmed by the United States Senate. They will 
take a governmentwide look at the regulatory system, allowing for 
impartial and wide-ranging review of outdated and unnecessary 
regulations.
  This is not a new or a partisan concept. In fact, in 1978, President 
Jimmy Carter issued an executive order requiring agencies to 
``periodically review their existing regulations to determine whether 
they are achieving the policy goals.'' In addition, every President 
since has required some level of retrospective regulatory self-review 
by those agencies themselves. In fact, it was President Obama who 
issued three executive orders on regulatory review. He required 
agencies to develop retrospective review plans and to set priorities 
for implementing that review.
  The commission is tasked with identifying regulations that ought to 
be repealed or amended. The commission will use commonsense criteria to 
determine whether regulations are overlaps, duplicates, or just flat-
out conflicts with existing regulations. After expedited congressional 
approval, agencies are required to repeal some regulations based on the 
commission's recommendations. So you have people who are selected, they 
are Senate confirmed, then they bring forward a package that is allowed 
to be viewed by Congress.
  Some have said, well, you know, this is excusing Congress from its 
duties. Quite to the contrary. The committees, Members, everybody 
should be paying attention to this, but to have a bipartisan group go 
out and look and make a recommendation, then it is up to Congress 
whether or not to accept it. We need to go through the House, the 
Senate, and be signed on by the President in a bipartisan way because 
there will be Members from both sides of the aisle who will be able to 
appoint members.
  Other regulations would be subject to innovative, regulatory CutGo 
procedures. The CutGo process gives agencies flexibility on how to 
prioritize regulatory elimination. It allows agencies to choose which 
regulations to repeal or amend and at what time. However, new 
regulations may not be promulgated until equally costly regulations are 
repealed.
  The SCRUB Act gives agencies the direction and momentum needed to 
implement the regulatory reform our economy needs. We all know that 
regulations can improve health and safety; but sometimes, with the best 
intention, these outdated and excessive regulations hurt our economy 
and put other people in jeopardy. The accumulation over decades is 
something that should just simply be reviewed. I think it is pretty 
hard to argue that a review process is unwarranted or unneeded, given 
the amazing and impactful status that it puts upon those things that 
are damaging our economy.
  I again want to thank Jason Smith for his leadership on this issue. I 
also want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte and the Judiciary staff for 
their dedicated work on this, as well as Chairman Pete Sessions for his 
good work on this. A lot of good people have worked on this. I do 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                Washington, DC, February 16, 2017.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 14, 2017, the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without 
     amendment H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting 
     Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017'' 
     (SCRUB Act) by a vote of 22 to 17. The bill was referred 
     primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, with an additional referral to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration, to 
     memorialize our understanding.

[[Page 3167]]

       Thank you for your consideration of my request.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 21, 2017.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz: I write with respect to H.R. 998, 
     the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are 
     Unnecessarily Burdensome Act.'' As a result of your having 
     consulted with us on provisions within H.R. 998 that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, I forego any further consideration of this bill so 
     that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for 
     consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 998 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our 
     committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as 
     this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation and asks 
     that you support any such request.
       I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 998 and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of H.R. 998.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The 
SCRUB Act would establish a $30 million commission of unelected--and I 
emphasize that, unelected--bureaucrats to duplicate work that agencies 
are already supposed to be doing. The bill would focus on the costs of 
regulations while disregarding their benefits and protecting the most 
vulnerable populations in our country, like the children in Flint, 
Michigan.

                              {time}  1430

  If there is any doubt about this, one need look no further than the 
so-called CutGo provision in this bill. That provision would require 
that, when an agency makes a new rule, it must offset the cost of that 
new rule for the repeal of an existing rule. This applies even if the 
new rule is in response to an imminent health or safety threat.
  Agency compliance with this CutGo provision would also be subject to 
judicial review, which prolongs the process even more. This would 
inevitably result in lengthy delays, as both industry and nonprofit 
groups routinely file challenges to agency decisions.
  President Obama has already issued two executive orders to eliminate 
unnecessary regulations. On January 18, 2011, he issued Executive Order 
13563, requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing 
rules. That executive order requires each agency to: ``periodically 
review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any 
such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 
repealed.''
  In addition, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13610 on May 
10, 2012, requiring agencies to report twice a year to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs on the status of their review 
efforts. In November 2014, a report prepared for the Administrative 
Conference of the United States highlighted the impact of these 
mandated reviews, concluding: ``Implementing President Obama's 
executive orders on retrospective review of regulations, agencies 
identified tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and tens of 
millions of hours of reduced paperwork and reporting requirements 
through modifications of existing regulations.''
  Congress has the authority and certainly the responsibility to 
conduct oversight to review existing agency rules and to recommend or 
mandate reforms, yet this bill would create a new commission, a new 
commission that would cost taxpayers $30 million to do what agencies 
and Congress are already supposed to be doing.
  In addition, the commission's report to Congress on the rules it 
recommends repealing would be subject to an up-or-down vote by the 
Congress. Congress would not be allowed to vote on each regulation 
individually, and this would usurp the authority of Congress.
  One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it would 
entrust this unelected commission with extraordinary and virtually 
unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. Section 101(c) 
of the bill states: ``The commission may issue subpoenas requiring the 
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any 
evidence relating to the duties of the commission. The attendance of 
witnesses and the production of evidence may be required from any place 
within the United States at any designated place of hearing within the 
United States.''
  Most agency inspectors general do not have such broad authority to 
compel witness testimony. Yet this unelected commission would have this 
authority. This means that it could compel an individual to testify on 
any subject. For example, a schoolteacher could be compelled to testify 
about education rules or a senior citizen could be compelled to testify 
about Medicare or Social Security rules. This extraordinary subpoena 
power is especially troubling because the commission's jurisdiction is 
limitless.
  There is no restriction on what regulations the commission can 
review. Three prominent law professors with the Center for Progressive 
Reform sent a letter opposing an identical bill in the last Congress. 
The letter said this proposal would: ``create a convoluted, complex, 
and potentially very expensive new bureaucracy to review existing 
agency rules and make recommendations for the repeal or weakening of 
those rules with little meaningful oversight, transparency, or public 
accountability to ensure that these recommendations do not subvert the 
public interest.''
  In addition, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more 
than 150 consumer, labor, and good-government groups, also oppose the 
bill.
  This bill could have dangerous consequences for the health and safety 
of the American public; therefore, I strongly urge every Member to 
oppose it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for allowing me this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, America is home to some of the most creative, 
innovative, inspirational people imaginable. When empowered, Americans 
design and build in ways that change the world, and change it for the 
better.
  But far too often, our innovators are bogged down by red tape, thanks 
to a government that thinks it knows better how to think, how to 
believe, how to run their businesses, and how to live their lives. It 
is not only making life more difficult. It costs us nearly $2 trillion 
a year. That is about $15,000 a family. So we are rolling back these 
regulations and offering much-needed relief to families and businesses 
across the country.
  Thanks to my good friend, Representative Jason Smith's leadership, 
the SCRUB Act provides another powerful tool that gives control back to 
the American people through their Representatives. This bill creates a 
long, overdue process to identify ineffective, outdated, and 
duplicative regulations for repeal, with priority being given to the 
older, major, more expensive rules.
  We made a promise to the American people. Their voice matters in our 
government. We are going to do whatever we can to restore that voice 
and put it at the center of every decision we make.
  I am proud of Representative Smith's work to rein in government. I am 
proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[[Page 3168]]


  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a very distinguished member of 
our committee.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many troubling aspects of this bill, but most 
pressing is that this legislation, without clear policy rationale, 
caters to demands of my Republican colleagues to slash existing 
regulations and muddy the process of passing new ones.
  Congress already has a responsibility of reviewing existing rules and 
mandating reform. Why delegate that to those not elected to do so?
  This unsettling bill spends millions of taxpayer dollars to create a 
hand-picked commission to do the job of Congress without 
accountability. No, thank you.
  This unelected and unaccountable commission, appointed by the 
President and Congress, would submit regulatory changes without the 
opportunity to amend the measure, taking regulatory review out of the 
hands of the agency experts. This is counterproductive and an insult to 
the democratic process.
  To add insult to injury, this bill makes the regulatory process 
transactional.
  By forcing agencies to repeal regulations in order to adopt a new 
one, we risk public health and safety.
  Why have they prioritized costs over benefit? Why are American lives 
on the chopping block?
  I urge my colleagues to vote no against this bill.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on January 20, America witnessed 
the end of the most regulation-happy Presidency in American history. 
Under the Obama administration, the pages of the Code of Federal 
Regulations reached the highest level in the history of our country.
  The Obama administration issued 3,037 finalized regulations, which 
means almost two new regulations were added each and every day on 
American farmers, families, and small-business owners. Regulations from 
the last administration alone cost taxpayers $873 billion. That is a 
burden of over $12 million an hour added by the Obama White House on 
the American taxpayer. Back home in Missouri alone, the cost of 
complying with regulations just added by the Obama administration 
totaled $19 billion, which is equal to over $9,000 in costs per person. 
Regulations written by unelected bureaucrats in Washington are 
suffocating the very farmers and small-business owners who we need to 
hire and expand in order to get full workforce participation.
  Today, we are considering a solution to this problem with the 
Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome 
Act, otherwise known as the SCRUB Act. The SCRUB Act's objective is to 
reduce the overall cost of regulations by at least 15 percent.
  With the passage of the SCRUB Act today, we are simply putting the 
tools in place to support what President Trump has already started. 
During his first full week in office, President Trump authored an 
executive order for the purpose of reducing regulation and controlling 
regulatory costs. The order is simple. For every new proposed 
regulation, two existing ones must be taken off the books. This order 
will help prioritize regulations truly in the best interest of the 
American people and remove ones that are outdated, burdensome, and 
costly.
  And just last week, the President began a regulatory review task 
force to review existing regulations. The SCRUB Act mirrors and 
supports the President's actions, ensuring that our regulatory burdens 
never again reach the heights that they are today.
  The SCRUB Act makes sure that farmers, small-business owners, and 
families impacted by Washington regulators have a seat at the table in 
prioritizing which ones the Trump White House should remove. We must 
help the President put an end to the Washington-knows-best mentality 
that has polluted our Nation's Capital and plagued the American people 
for the past 8 years.
  Many of you voted in favor of this legislation last Congress. 
However, with this new administration, the American people are calling 
for us to change the way things are done in Washington. So it is my 
hope that you will join me once again in helping put an end to the 
Washington regulatory machine.
  I also call on my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, who 
seem lately more bent on obstruction, to reevaluate why their districts 
and States sent them to Washington. I am hopeful they will consider 
supporting the legislation, policies, laws, and nominations that will 
help alleviate the burden of an oversized Federal Government. With the 
SCRUB Act, we have a real opportunity to shrink the size of government 
and get Washington off the backs of the American people.
  I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing 
this bill up today, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
SCRUB Act.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee, a great leader in our Congress, and 
someone who I admire greatly.
  The only thing clever about this bill is the title. Everything else 
about this bill is truly diabolical. The SCRUB Act isn't going to clean 
anything up. Its toxic suds will just make people sicker, our 
environment dirtier, and our products more dangerous.
  Creating an unelected commission to oversee the entire regulatory 
policy of the United States is undemocratic and unimaginably damaging. 
Essentially, five people appointed by the President would be able to 
sacrifice the health and safety of the American public to the altar of 
big business.

                              {time}  1445

  Say good-bye to protections from big banks, big polluters, and big 
pharmaceutical companies; and hello to financial ruin, environmental 
destruction, and unsafe food and drugs.
  These Presidential pawns would also have unlimited subpoena power. 
Now, think about this: they are going to have more subpoena power than 
the inspectors general in this country.
  Also, the SCRUB Act's senseless and dangerous regulatory cut-go 
process would force agencies to choose between maintaining existing 
protections and responding to new threats to our health and safety. For 
example, in order to clean up the air, an agency might have to allow a 
corporation to pollute our drinking water.
  Talk about death panels--this, my friends, is a death panel. The only 
thing the SCRUB Act washes away is commonsense governance. This is a 
diabolical bill; and this, my friends, is what being drunk with power 
delivers.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, you know what? We have got over 1 
million pages of regulations. We have got so many laws nobody could 
possibly know them. I would venture to say there are very few people 
today who can't go a day without violating some law or some regulation. 
It has gotten too complex.
  Nobody wants a dirty environment. Nobody wants dirty water, but we 
need a reasonable amount of regulation that we can understand, that we 
can follow, and that will protect America and create jobs.
  The SCRUB Act creates a commission that comes back to Congress with 
recommendations of what to get rid of. You know what? I would like to 
do it all here in Congress, too, but we sure face a lot of obstruction 
in getting things done here. It doesn't move fast here.
  Let's get a commission to do the basic work. Let's bring it back to 
Congress, and let us decide and let us get rid of regulations. Let's 
make the agencies pick and choose which regulations that they think are 
important, and they will do it.

[[Page 3169]]

  This is commonsense legislation to get the regulatory state under 
control, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SCRUB Act poses real and significant dangers to the health and 
welfare of the American public. By focusing predominantly on the cost 
of the rules, the SCRUB Act's CutGo provision will repeal rules with 
little regard for how they benefit and protect the American people.
  The commission's virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses 
or documents, combined with its uncircumscribed ability to review and 
recommend repeal of any current rules, is an extraordinary grant of 
power that could have tragic repercussions for the health and safety of 
the American people.
  The SCRUB Act is a waste of $30 million of hard-earned taxpayer money 
for work that is already being done by Federal agencies.
  I strongly urge every Member to oppose this act.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, some time ago, when I first got involved in this political 
processing, I made it known that I felt that the silent killer of 
American business was the regulatory regime that we have in place, 
where over 50 years this Congress has ceded its authority to 
unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats. Today we have 175,000 pages in 
the Code of Federal Register that is evidence of that. It is time that 
we, as a Congress, on behalf of our constituency, on behalf of the 
future well-being of this country, take back that authority with 
oversight and accountability through this SCRUB Act.
  It has been said that there is approximately, on average, $20,000 a 
year per employee of a manufacturer that is attributable just to 
compliance with regulation. We need to make sure that we have our 
manufacturers, our businesses, doing that which they do best within a 
reasonable regulatory scheme, and that is what this act offers: a 
reasonable regulatory scheme that allows Congress who has the 
authority--actually has the only authority--to hold accountable these 
unelectable bureaucrats. The SCRUB Act will allow us to do that.
  It will allow due process through a discovery process. More 
importantly, the review board, the commission, the five bipartisan 
members who are appointed by the President must be confirmed by the 
Senate. This, in and of itself, is a sense of due process, a sense of 
accountability, and, more importantly, a strong sense of purpose that 
the American people would want to see this Congress be able to go in 
and take back the authority that they have delegated--at sometimes 
recklessly--to these bureaucratic organizations.
  We talk about the $30 million. I know the $30 million is always big 
in any equation that you have, but when you allow the $30 million to be 
spent over 5 years and you allow that to have the removal of certain 
regulations, you will pay for this $30 million 10 times over in no time 
at all.
  So it is with a sense of advocacy on behalf of not only congressional 
authority, but also a sense of advocacy on behalf of American business 
and the future economic growth of this country, that I ask my 
colleagues to wholeheartedly support the SCRUB Act.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
998, the SCRUB Act.
  This ill-advised bill would require agencies to undertake a 
regulatory cut-go process to repeal rules identified by the Commission, 
with little to no consideration of the benefits, prior to issuing any 
new rule.
  The SCRUB Act's regulatory cut-go procedures are unsafe, dangerous, 
and would tie the hands of agencies responding to public health crises 
requiring timely regulatory responses. In fact, this bill lacks any 
mechanism for consideration of public health and safety, thus leaving 
no option for agencies to issue emergency rules to protect the public 
and environment from imminent harm.
  The bill's proponents may claim that the title I of the H.R. 1155 
would allow the Commission to consider whether the costs of the bill 
are not justified by the benefit to society. But as witnesses testified 
during the Judiciary Committee's consideration of a previous version of 
this bill, the catch-all language of subsection (h)(2)(I) would allow 
the Commission to completely disregard any benefit of regulation.
  In both Republican and Democratic administrations, the benefits of 
our system of regulatory protections have made our country safer, 
stronger, healthier, and cleaner. While consideration of the costs of 
regulations is important, there is overwhelming consensus that the 
benefits of regulation vastly exceed the costs.
  The Government Accountability Office has observed that these benefits 
``include, among other things, ensuring that workplaces, air travel, 
foods, and drugs are safe; that the nation's air, water and land are 
not polluted; and that the appropriate amount of taxes is collected.''
  This evidence overwhelmingly refutes the assertion that regulatory 
costs are burdensome, eliminate jobs, or harm our economic 
competitiveness. We should be empowering our agencies, not hindering 
them, to take the steps needed to protect our environment, consumer 
products, public health, and safety.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). 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. 998

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Searching for and Cutting 
     Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act'' or as the 
     ``SCRUB Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

          TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

Sec. 101. In general.

                      TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO

Sec. 201. Cut-go procedures.
Sec. 202. Applicability.
Sec. 203. OIRA certification of cost calculations.

              TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES

Sec. 301. Plan for future review.

                       TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

Sec. 401. Judicial review.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Effective date.

          TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

     SEC. 101. IN GENERAL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission, to 
     be known as the ``Retrospective Regulatory Review 
     Commission'', that shall review rules and sets of rules in 
     accordance with specified criteria to determine if a rule or 
     set of rules should be repealed to eliminate or reduce the 
     costs of regulation to the economy. The Commission shall 
     terminate on the date that is 5 years and 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act or 5 years after the date by 
     which all Commission members' terms have commenced, whichever 
     is later.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 members 
     who shall be appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
     Senate. Each member shall be appointed not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Term.--The term of each member shall commence upon the 
     member's confirmation by the Senate and shall extend to the 
     date that is 5 years and 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act or that is 5 years after the date by which all 
     members have been confirmed by the Senate, whichever is 
     later.
       (3) Appointment.--The members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed as follows:
       (A) Chair.--The President shall appoint as the Chair of the 
     Commission an individual with expertise and experience in 
     rulemaking, such as past Administrators of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs, past chairmen of the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States, and other 
     individuals with similar expertise and experience in 
     rulemaking affairs and the administration of regulatory 
     reviews.
       (B) Candidate list of members.--The Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate shall each present to the 
     President a list of candidates to be members of the 
     Commission. Such candidates shall be individuals learned in 
     rulemaking affairs and, preferably, administration of 
     regulatory reviews. The President shall appoint 2 members of 
     the Commission

[[Page 3170]]

     from each list provided under this subparagraph, subject to 
     the provisions of subparagraph (C).
       (C) Resubmission of candidate.--The President may request 
     from the presenter of the list under subparagraph (B) a new 
     list of one or more candidates if the President--
       (i) determines that any candidate on the list presented 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) does not meet the qualifications 
     specified in such subparagraph to be a member of the 
     Commission; and
       (ii) certifies that determination to the congressional 
     officials specified in subparagraph (B).
       (c) Powers and Authorities of the Commission.--
       (1) Meetings.--The Commission may meet when, where, and as 
     often as the Commission determines appropriate, except that 
     the Commission shall hold public meetings not less than twice 
     each year. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to 
     the public.
       (2) Hearings.--In addition to meetings held under paragraph 
     (1), the Commission may hold hearings to consider issues of 
     fact or law relevant to the Commission's work. Any hearing 
     held by the Commission shall be open to the public.
       (3) Access to information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any agency information and documents necessary 
     to enable the Commission to carry out this Act. Upon request 
     of the Chair of the Commission, the head of that agency shall 
     furnish that information or document to the Commission as 
     soon as possible, but not later than two weeks after the date 
     on which the request was made.
       (4) Subpoenas.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas 
     requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
     production of any evidence relating to the duties of the 
     Commission. The attendance of witnesses and the production of 
     evidence may be required from any place within the United 
     States at any designated place of hearing within the United 
     States.
       (B) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A), the Commission 
     may apply to a United States district court for an order 
     requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give 
     testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter 
     under investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (C) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission 
     shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued 
     by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
       (D) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application is made under subparagraph (B) may be served in 
     the judicial district in which the person required to be 
     served resides or may be found.
       (d) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
       (1) Pay.--
       (A) Members.--Each member, other than the Chair of the 
     Commission, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which the member is engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties vested in the Commission.
       (B) Chair.--The Chair shall be paid for each day referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable 
     for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Members shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (e) Director of Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall appoint a Director.
       (2) Pay.--The Director shall be paid at the rate of basic 
     pay payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director, 
     with the approval of the Commission, may appoint, fix the pay 
     of, and terminate additional personnel.
       (2) Limitations on appointment.--The Director may make such 
     appointments without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without 
     regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and 
     General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so 
     appointed may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (3) Agency assistance.--Following consultation with and 
     upon request of the Chair of the Commission, the head of any 
     agency may detail any of the personnel of that agency to the 
     Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out the 
     duties of the Commission under this Act.
       (4) GAO and oira assistance.--The Comptroller General of 
     the United States and the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide assistance, 
     including the detailing of employees, to the Commission in 
     accordance with an agreement entered into with the 
     Commission.
       (5) Assistance from other parties.--Congress, the States, 
     municipalities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and local 
     governments may provide assistance, including the detailing 
     of employees, to the Commission in accordance with an 
     agreement entered into with the Commission.
       (g) Other Authority.--
       (1) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure by 
     contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Property.--The Commission may lease space and acquire 
     personal property to the extent funds are available.
       (h) Duties of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a review of 
     the Code of Federal Regulations to identify rules and sets of 
     rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that 
     should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the 
     economy. The Commission shall give priority in the review to 
     rules or sets of rules that are major rules or include major 
     rules, have been in effect more than 15 years, impose 
     paperwork burdens or unfunded mandates that could be reduced 
     substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory 
     effectiveness, impose disproportionately high costs on 
     entities that qualify as small entities within the meaning of 
     section 601(6) of title 5, United States Code, or could be 
     strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory 
     costs. The Commission shall have as a goal of the Commission 
     to achieve a reduction of at least 15 percent in the 
     cumulative costs of Federal regulation with a minimal 
     reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation.
       (2) Nature of review.--To identify which rules and sets of 
     rules should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to 
     the economy, the Commission shall apply the following 
     criteria:
       (A) Whether the original purpose of the rule or set of 
     rules was achieved, and the rule or set of rules could be 
     repealed without significant recurrence of adverse effects or 
     conduct that the rule or set of rules was intended to prevent 
     or reduce.
       (B) Whether the implementation, compliance, administration, 
     enforcement, imposition of unfunded mandates, or other costs 
     of the rule or set of rules to the economy are not justified 
     by the benefits to society within the United States produced 
     by the expenditure of those costs.
       (C) Whether the rule or set of rules has been rendered 
     unnecessary or obsolete, taking into consideration the length 
     of time since the rule was made and the degree to which 
     technology, economic conditions, market practices, or other 
     relevant factors have changed in the subject area affected by 
     the rule or set of rules.
       (D) Whether the rule or set of rules is ineffective at 
     achieving the purposes of the rule or set of rules.
       (E) Whether the rule or set of rules overlaps, duplicates, 
     or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent 
     feasible, with State and local governmental rules.
       (F) Whether the rule or set of rules has excessive 
     compliance costs, imposes unfunded mandates, or is otherwise 
     excessively burdensome, as compared to alternatives 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;
       (iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather than 
     agency actions that specify conduct or manners of compliance; 
     or
       (v) could in other ways substantially lower costs without 
     significantly undermining effectiveness.
       (G) Whether the rule or set of rules inhibits innovation in 
     or growth of the United States economy, such as by impeding 
     the introduction or use of safer or equally safe technology 
     that is newer or more efficient than technology required by 
     or permissible under the rule or set of rules.
       (H) Whether or not the rule or set of rules harms 
     competition within the United States economy or the 
     international economic competitiveness of enterprises or 
     entities based in the United States.
       (I) Whether or not the rule or set of rules limits or 
     prevents an agency from applying new or emerging technologies 
     to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government.
       (J) Whether the rule or set of rules harms wage growth, 
     including wage growth for minimum wage and part-time workers.
       (K) Such other criteria as the Commission devises to 
     identify rules and sets of rules that can be repealed to 
     eliminate or reduce unnecessarily burdensome costs to the 
     United States economy.
       (3) Methodology for review.--The Commission shall establish 
     a methodology for

[[Page 3171]]

     conducting the review (including an overall review and 
     discrete reviews of portions of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations), identifying rules and sets of rules, and 
     classifying rules under this subsection and publish the terms 
     of the methodology in the Federal Register and on the website 
     of the Commission. The Commission may propose and seek public 
     comment on the methodology before the methodology is 
     established.
       (4) Classification of rules and sets of rules.--
       (A) In general.--After completion of any review of rules or 
     sets of rules under paragraph (2), the Commission shall 
     classify each rule or set of rules identified in the review 
     to qualify for recommended repeal as either a rule or set of 
     rules--
       (i) on which immediate action to repeal is recommended; or
       (ii) that should be eligible for repeal under regulatory 
     cut-go procedures under title II.
       (B) Decisions by majority.--Each decision by the Commission 
     to identify a rule or set of rules for classification under 
     this paragraph, and each decision whether to classify the 
     rule or set of rules under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A), shall be made by a simple majority vote of the 
     Commission. No such vote shall take place until after all 
     members of the Commission have been confirmed by the Senate.
       (5) Initiation of review by other persons.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may also conduct a review 
     under paragraph (2) of, and, if appropriate, classify under 
     paragraph (4), any rule or set of rules that is submitted for 
     review to the Commission by--
       (i) the President;
       (ii) a Member of Congress;
       (iii) any officer or employee of a Federal, State, local or 
     tribal government, or regional governmental body; or
       (iv) any member of the public.
       (B) Form of submission.--A submission to the Commission 
     under this paragraph shall--
       (i) identify the specific rule or set of rules submitted 
     for review;
       (ii) provide a statement of evidence to demonstrate that 
     the rule or set of rules qualifies to be identified for 
     repeal under the criteria listed in paragraph (2); and
       (iii) such other information as the submitter believes may 
     be helpful to the Commission's review, including a statement 
     of the submitter's interest in the matter.
       (C) Public availability.--The Commission shall make each 
     submission received under this paragraph available on the 
     website of the Commission as soon as possible, but not later 
     than 1 week after the date on which the submission was 
     received.
       (i) Notices and Reports of the Commission.--
       (1) Notices of and reports on activities.--The Commission 
     shall publish, in the Federal Register and on the website of 
     the Commission--
       (A) notices in advance of all public meetings, hearings, 
     and classifications under subsection (h) informing the public 
     of the basis, purpose, and procedures for the meeting, 
     hearing, or classification; and
       (B) reports after the conclusion of any public meeting, 
     hearing, or classification under subsection (h) summarizing 
     in detail the basis, purpose, and substance of the meeting, 
     hearing, or classification.
       (2) Annual reports to congress.--Each year, beginning on 
     the date that is one year after the date on which all 
     Commission members have been confirmed by the Senate, the 
     Commission shall submit a report simultaneously to each House 
     of Congress detailing the activities of the Commission for 
     the previous year, and listing all rules and sets of rules 
     classified under subsection (h) during that year. For each 
     rule or set of rules so listed, the Commission shall--
       (A) identify the agency that made the rule or set of rules;
       (B) identify the annual cost of the rule or set of rules to 
     the United States economy and the basis upon which the 
     Commission identified that cost;
       (C) identify whether the rule or set of rules was 
     classified under clause (i) or clause (ii) of subsection 
     (h)(4)(A);
       (D) identify the criteria under subsection (h)(2) that 
     caused the classification of the rule or set of rules and the 
     basis upon which the Commission determined that those 
     criteria were met;
       (E) for each rule or set of rules listed under the criteria 
     set forth in subparagraph (B), (D), (F), (G), (H), or (I) of 
     subsection (h)(2), or other criteria established by the 
     Commission under subparagraph (I) of such subsection under 
     which the Commission evaluated alternatives to the rule or 
     set of rules that could lead to lower regulatory costs, 
     identify alternatives to the rule or set of rules that the 
     Commission recommends the agency consider as replacements for 
     the rule or set of rules and the basis on which the 
     Commission rests the recommendations, and, in identifying 
     such alternatives, emphasize alternatives that will achieve 
     regulatory effectiveness at the lowest cost and with the 
     lowest adverse impacts on jobs;
       (F) for each rule or set of rules listed under the criteria 
     set forth in subsection (h)(2)(E), the other Federal, State, 
     or local governmental rules that the Commission found the 
     rule or set of rules to overlap, duplicate, or conflict with, 
     and the basis for the findings of the Commission; and
       (G) in the case of each set of rules so listed, analyze 
     whether Congress should also consider repeal of the statutory 
     authority implemented by the set of rules.
       (3) Final report.--Not later than the date on which the 
     Commission members' appointments expire, the Commission shall 
     submit a final report simultaneously to each House of 
     Congress summarizing all activities and recommendations of 
     the Commission, including a list of all rules or sets of 
     rules the Commission classified under clause (i) of 
     subsection (h)(4)(A) for immediate action to repeal, a 
     separate list of all rules or sets of rules the Commission 
     classified under clause (ii) of subsection (h)(4)(A) for 
     repeal, and with regard to each rule or set of rules listed 
     on either list, the information described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) of subsection (h)(2). This report may be 
     included in the final annual report of the Commission under 
     paragraph (2) and may include the Commission's recommendation 
     whether the Commission should be reauthorized by Congress.
       (j) Repeal of Regulations; Congressional Consideration of 
     Commission Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)--
       (A) the head of each agency with authority to repeal a rule 
     or set of rules classified by the Commission under subsection 
     (h)(4)(A)(i) for immediate action to repeal and newly listed 
     as such in an annual or final report of the Commission under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (i) shall repeal the rule 
     or set of rules as recommended by the Commission within 60 
     days after the enactment of a joint resolution under 
     paragraph (2) for approval of the recommendations of the 
     Commission in the report; and
       (B) the head of each agency with authority to repeal a rule 
     or set of rules classified by the Commission under subsection 
     (h)(4)(A)(ii) for repeal and newly listed as such in an 
     annual or final report of the Commission under paragraph (2) 
     or (3) of subsection (i) shall repeal the rule or set of 
     rules as recommended by the Commission pursuant to section 
     201, following the enactment of a joint resolution under 
     paragraph (2) for approval of the recommendations of the 
     Commission in the report.
       (2) Congressional approval.--
       (A) In general.--No head of an agency described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be required by this Act to carry out a 
     repeal listed by the Commission in a report transmitted to 
     Congress under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (i) until a 
     joint resolution is enacted, in accordance with the 
     provisions of subparagraph (B), approving such 
     recommendations of the Commission for repeal.
       (B) Terms of the resolution.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (A), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint 
     resolution which is introduced after the date on which the 
     Commission transmits to the Congress under paragraph (2) or 
     (3) of subsection (i) the report containing the 
     recommendations to which the resolution pertains, and--
       (i) which does not have a preamble;
       (ii) the matter after the resolving clause of which is only 
     as follows: ``That Congress approves the recommendations for 
     repeal of the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission as 
     submitted by the Commission on ____'', the blank space being 
     filled in with the appropriate date; and
       (iii) the title of which is as follows: ``Approving 
     recommendations for repeal of the Retrospective Regulatory 
     Review Commission.''.
       (3) Reissuance of rules.--
       (A) No substantially similar rule to be reissued.--A rule 
     that is repealed under paragraph (1) or section 201 may not 
     be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule 
     that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be 
     issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically 
     authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint 
     resolution approving the Commission's recommendation to 
     repeal the original rule.
       (B) Agency to ensure avoidance of similar defects.--An 
     agency, in making any new rule to implement statutory 
     authority previously implemented by a rule repealed under 
     paragraph (1) or section 201, shall ensure that the new rule 
     does not result in the same adverse effects of the repealed 
     rule that caused the Commission to recommend to Congress the 
     latter's repeal and will not result in new adverse effects of 
     the kind described in the criteria specified in or under 
     subsection (h).
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to the Commission to carry out 
     this Act, not to exceed $30,000,000.
       (2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this section shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until the earlier 
     of the date that such sums are expended or the date of the 
     termination of the Commission.
       (l) Website.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall establish a public 
     website that--
       (A) uses current information technology to make records 
     available on the website;
       (B) provides information in a standard data format; and
       (C) receives and publishes public comments.

[[Page 3172]]

       (2) Publishing of information.--Any information required to 
     be made available on the website established pursuant to this 
     Act shall be published in a timely manner and shall be 
     accessible by the public on the website at no cost.
       (3) Record of public meetings and hearings.--All records of 
     public meetings and hearings shall be published on the 
     website as soon as possible, but not later than 1 week after 
     the date on which such public meeting or hearing occurred.
       (4) Public comments.--The Commission shall publish on the 
     website all public comments and submissions.
       (5) Notices.--The Commission shall publish on the website 
     notices of all public meetings and hearings at least one week 
     before the date on which such public meeting or hearing 
     occurs.
       (m) Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the Commission shall be subject to the provisions of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (2) Advisory committee management officer.--The Commission 
     shall not be subject to the control of any Advisory Committee 
     Management Officer designated under section 8(b)(1) of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (3) Subcommittee.--Any subcommittee of the Commission shall 
     be treated as the Commission for purposes of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (4) Charter.--The enactment of the SCRUB Act shall be 
     considered to meet the requirements of the Commission under 
     section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App.).
       (n) Definition.--In this section, 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)).

                      TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO

     SEC. 201. CUT-GO PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 101(j)(2)(A) 
     or section 202, an agency, when the agency makes a new rule, 
     shall repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency classified 
     by the Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii), such that 
     the annual costs of the new rule to the United States economy 
     is offset by such repeals, in an amount equal to or greater 
     than the cost of the new rule, based on the regulatory cost 
     reductions of repeal identified by the Commission.
       (b) Alternative Procedure.--An agency may, alternatively, 
     repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency classified by 
     the Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) prior to the 
     time specified in subsection (a). If the agency so repeals 
     such a rule or set of rules and thereby reduces the annual, 
     inflation-adjusted cost of the rule or set of rules to the 
     United States economy, the agency may thereafter apply the 
     reduction in regulatory costs, based on the regulatory cost 
     reductions of repeal identified by the Commission, to meet, 
     in whole or in part, the regulatory cost reduction required 
     under subsection (a) of this section to be made at the time 
     the agency promulgates a new rule.
       (c) Achievement of Full Net Cost Reductions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of paragraph 
     (2), an agency may offset the costs of a new rule or set of 
     rules by repealing a rule or set of rules listed by the 
     Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) that implement the 
     same statutory authority as the new rule or set of rules.
       (2) Limitation.--When using the authority provided in 
     paragraph (1), the agency must achieve a net reduction in 
     costs imposed by the agency's body of rules (including the 
     new rule or set of rules) that is equal to or greater than 
     the cost of the new rule or set of rules to be promulgated, 
     including, whenever necessary, by repealing additional rules 
     of the agency listed by the Commission under section 
     101(h)(4)(A)(ii).

     SEC. 202. APPLICABILITY.

       An agency shall no longer be subject to the requirements of 
     sections 201 and 203 beginning on the date that there is no 
     rule or set of rules of the agency classified by the 
     Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) that has not been 
     repealed such that all regulatory cost reductions identified 
     by the Commission to be achievable through repeal have been 
     achieved.

     SEC. 203. OIRA CERTIFICATION OF COST CALCULATIONS.

       The Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall review and certify the accuracy of agency 
     determinations of the costs of new rules under section 201. 
     The certification shall be included in the administrative 
     record of the relevant rulemaking by the agency promulgating 
     the rule, and the Administrator shall transmit a copy of the 
     certification to Congress when it transmits the certification 
     to the agency.

              TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES

     SEC. 301. PLAN FOR FUTURE REVIEW.

       When an agency makes a rule, the agency shall include in 
     the final issuance of such rule a plan for the review of such 
     rule by not later than 10 years after the date such rule is 
     made. Such a review, in the case of a major rule, shall be 
     substantially similar to the review by the Commission under 
     section 101(h). In the case of a rule other than a major 
     rule, the agency's plan for review shall include other 
     procedures and standards to enable the agency to determine 
     whether to repeal or amend the rule to eliminate unnecessary 
     regulatory costs to the economy. Whenever feasible, the 
     agency shall include a proposed plan for review of a proposed 
     rule in its notice of proposed rulemaking and shall receive 
     public comment on the plan.

                       TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

     SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Immediate Repeals.--Agency compliance with section 
     101(j) of this Act shall be subject to judicial review under 
     chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Cut-Go Procedures.--Agency compliance with title II of 
     this Act shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7 
     of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Plans for Future Review.--Agency compliance with 
     section 301 shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 
     7 of title 5, United States Code.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission established under 
     section 101.
       (3) Major rule.--The term ``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.
       (4) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (5) Set of rules.--The term ``set of rules'' means a set of 
     rules that collectively implements a regulatory authority of 
     an agency.

     SEC. 502. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
those printed in House Report 115-20. 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. Cummings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), I offer amendment No. 1.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 16, insert after ``reviews.'' the following: 
     ``During the two-year period prior to the inclusion of an 
     individual on a list of candidates under this subparagraph, 
     the individual may not have been a registered lobbyist under 
     the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.).''.
       Page 6, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
       (4) Financial disclosure reports of members.--Each member 
     of the Commission shall file the financial disclosure reports 
     required under title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) in accordance with the requirements of 
     such title.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the maker of 
the amendment.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, my amendment today is meant to address only 
one of several troubling provisions in the bill.

[[Page 3173]]

  As my colleagues have pointed out, the SCRUB Act is a radical 
approach to deregulation and would prioritize cost savings through 
repeal of rules without considering their public benefit. The 
underlying bill would also prohibit agencies from making any new 
rules--even in the case of an imminent threat to public health or 
safety--unless the cost is offset by repealing an existing rule.
  We have heard often on this floor my Republican friends rail against 
regulations promulgated by faceless bureaucrats. Well, this bill seeks 
to accomplish all of this through the work of an unelected commission--
faceless--with virtually unlimited subpoena authority and jurisdiction 
over every existing regulation.
  This body would work in the shadows to roll back environmental and 
workplace protections, putting dollars and cents over public health. 
The legislation grants so much in the way of authority, but comes with 
so little in the way of oversight, transparency, or public 
accountability.
  President Trump and my friends on the other side of the aisle like to 
talk a lot about draining the swamp. Madam Chair, what the Republicans 
are proposing today makes a swamp look like the Hanging Gardens of 
Babylon, all at the cost of $30 million to the American taxpayer.
  My amendment today would bring a modicum of transparency and ethical 
oversight to the shadow bureaucracy by requiring commission members to 
follow the same financial disclosure rules as Members of Congress, 
congressional staff, or any Federal official.
  My amendment would also ensure that commission members don't come in 
through the ``revolving door'' by inserting a requirement that the 
individual must not have been a registered lobbyist at any point during 
the previous 2 years. Congress not only has the authority, but the duty 
to review existing regulations and, when necessary, to mandate reforms.
  But I understand why Republicans want to delegate this work. Because 
who wants to be the one to recommend rolling back rules governing clean 
air, clean water, food safety, workplace protections, domestic 
violence, victim protections, and many other rules that are in place to 
keep Americans healthy and safe?
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment simply to 
give transparency, openness, and clarity to the people who will be 
making the decisions under the SCRUB Act.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, although I am not in opposition to the 
amendment, I do wish to speak in support and further explain my 
support, because I believe that the gentleman from Virginia offers some 
very good merit to his amendment.
  The amendment clarifies that the commissioners are covered by the 
Ethics in Government Act, which is in line with current law. 
Commissioners should be free from financial conflict as much as any 
other Federal employee should. The Beyer amendment prohibits the 
appointment of a commissioner to the retrospective regulatory review 
commission who has been a registered lobbyist in the previous 2 years.
  Ensuring commissioners are not lobbyists with financial interests in 
the commission's work is in line with the commission's goal of 
identifying wasteful or unfair regulations. The 2-year ban allows 
genuine experts with some past lobbying experience to contribute their 
knowledge to the commission. This provision is very similar to the 
President's 2-year ban on former lobbyists working in the 
administration.
  For those reasons, I do support the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I have no further comments. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1500


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam 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 14, after line 22, insert the following new 
     subparagraph (and redesignate the following subparagraph 
     accordingly):
       (K) Whether, and the extent to which, the repeal of the 
     rule or set of rules would impact public health.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this 
amendment to H.R. 998. As drafted, the SCRUB Act requires Federal 
agencies to repeal existing regulations to offset the cost of new 
regulations. The bill also authorizes up to $30 million for a new 
commission to review the Code of Federal Regulations and recommend 
regulatory repeals.
  This commonsense amendment ensures the impacts of public health, 
including the costs and benefits associated with those impacts, are 
considered under processes established by the SCRUB Act. This, I 
believe, is a reasonable improvement to the bill. It ensures that 
Federal agencies appropriately consider the true costs and benefits of 
Federal rules with an eye towards saving hard-earned taxpayer money.
  As a member of the California State Senate, I worked with a 
Republican administration to help enact this legislation as the first-
ever health act of its type in the country in a State. It was based on 
the sensible premise that understanding the impacts of government 
actions on public health not only saves lives, but saves money.
  This effort helped provide California State agencies with the 
direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex 
environmental, financial, and sustainability factors that contribute to 
poor health and inequities. Over the 6 years of its existence, this 
policy has resulted in increased collaboration across large State 
agencies, saving taxpayer money while promoting improved public health 
throughout the Nation's largest State.
  Today, U.S. taxpayers face a growing burden of largely preventable 
chronic illnesses. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, and diabetes are but 
a few of the myriad health issues that millions of Americans face every 
day that also drive many of their financial and professional decisions.
  In many of our most disadvantaged communities, fewer resources are 
available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the 
levels of chronic illness in these communities and shorter life 
expectancies. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots of 
government policies on public health in our economy.
  If the goal of this legislation is eliminating existing regulations 
to pay for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to 
understand the impacts of these decisions on our Nation's public 
health? For example, eliminating the Department of Labor's silica rule 
might save an employer the expense of purchasing mitigation equipment, 
but does that employer truly save money if his health insurance 
premiums go up due to associated respiratory illness?
  When the majority pushed to eliminate the Department of the 
Interior's stream protection rule, thereby allowing mountaintop mining 
companies to dump potentially toxic mining debris in nearby streams, 
there was little consideration to the costs associated with mitigating 
the inevitable drinking water contamination and healthcare costs of 
those who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water.

[[Page 3174]]

  This amendment ensures that Federal agencies, at the very least, 
consider the health impacts and costs associated with eliminating a 
regulation. This amendment will help to go a long way in preventing 
unnecessary healthcare costs, which I hope we can agree is a positive 
improvement to the bill.
  If my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating Federal 
regulations, I hope that they agree that at least we can make sure that 
this independent commission will at least consider the benefits of 
public health as they do their analysis. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 998, the 
SCRUB Act.
  As currently drafted, the SCRUB Act requires federal agencies to 
repeal existing regulations to offset the cost of new regulations. The 
bill also authorizes up to $30 million for a new commission to review 
the Code of Federal Regulations and recommend regulatory repeals.
  This commonsense amendment ensures that impacts to public health, 
including the costs associated with those impacts, are considered under 
processes established by the SCRUB Act. This is a reasonable 
improvement to the bill ensures that federal agencies appropriately 
consider the true costs and benefits of federal rules with an eye 
towards saving hard-earned taxpayer money.
  As a member of the California State Senate, I helped to enact 
legislation focused on promoting public health throughout the state 
while saving taxpayer dollars. Based on the sensible premise that 
understanding the impacts of government actions on public health not 
only saves lives, but saves money.
  This effort helped provide California state agencies with the 
direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex 
environmental, financial, and sustainability factors that contribute to 
poor health and inequities. Over six years of existence, this policy 
has resulted in increased collaboration across state agencies, saving 
taxpayers money while promoting improved public health throughout the 
state.
  Today, U.S. taxpayers face a growing burden of largely preventable 
chronic illnesses. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, and diabetes are but 
a few of the myriad health issues that millions of Americans face every 
day that also drive many of their financial and professional decisions.
  In many of our most disadvantaged communities, fewer resources are 
available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the 
levels of chronic illness and shorter life expectancies. It doesn't 
take a genius to connect the dots of government policies on public 
health and our economy.
  If the goal of this legislation is to eliminate existing regulations 
to pay for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to 
understand the impacts of those decisions on public health?
  For example, eliminating the Department of Labor's Silica Rule might 
save an employer the expense of purchasing mitigation equipment, but 
does that employer truly save money if his health insurance premiums go 
up due to associated respiratory illness?
  When the Majority pushed to eliminate the Interior Department's 
Stream Protection rule, thereby allowing mountaintop mining companies 
to dump potentially toxic mining debris in nearby streams, there was 
little consideration to the costs associated with mitigating the 
inevitable drinking water contamination and health care costs of those 
who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water.
  This amendment ensures that federal agencies, at the very least, 
consider the health impacts and costs associated with eliminating a 
regulation. This effort will go a long way in preventing unnecessary 
health care costs, which I hope we can agree is a positive improvement 
to the bill.
  If my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating federal 
regulations, it only makes sense to ensure that removing such rules 
does not harm the public.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``YES'' on this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, this commission that we have here in the SCRUB 
Act is established to clear out old and unnecessary regulations. It 
currently requires the commission to consider whether the rule could be 
repealed without significant adverse effects, whether the rule is 
unnecessary, whether the costs are justified by the benefits, and 
certain other criteria.
  I think that the consideration of public health certainly fits within 
whether the rule would have significant adverse effects, whether it is 
necessary, and whether the benefits justify the cost. Health, safety, 
and welfare of the American people is foremost to what we do, and I 
laud my colleague from California for filing this amendment.
  This amendment clarifies that the commission should consider the 
impact on public health of repealing any regulation. I think that, 
again, my colleague from California gave fine examples of that 
particular balance.
  We agree that we want regulations that are necessary to protect 
public health. I am excited to see one of my Democratic colleagues 
working with us to improve regulatory reform legislation. I look 
forward to future opportunities to continue this work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I look forward to, in the future, 
working on true bipartisan regulation. I think it is one of those 
areas, at least in my experience in local and State government, that we 
should be working in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, this bill I do 
not believe accomplishes that.
  So regulatory oversight is probably the most important thing we could 
do, and I hope that we can do it in a bipartisan way in the future. I 
would encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam 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 California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. McSally

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Ms. McSALLY. Madam 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 14, after line 22, insert the following new 
     subparagraph (and redesignate the subsequent subparagraph 
     accordingly):
       (K) Whether the rule or set of rules is in full compliance 
     with the requirements of section 801(a)(1)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Ms. McSally) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 998, the 
SCRUB Act, and urge adoption of my amendment.
  The Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission created in the SCRUB 
Act is an important tool to help Congress reclaim its constitutional 
role of serving as a check to the executive branch and will help bring 
back jobs and opportunity to hardworking Americans.
  In 2016 alone, the Obama administration added 97,110 pages to the 
Federal Register. That is over 75 times more than the Bible, without 
any of the good news. These rules and regulations accumulate with no 
relief and touch every aspect of life all the way down to recordkeeping 
for contact lenses, vending machine food labeling, and walk-in freezer 
testing.
  Of the over 3,500 final regulations issued in 2016, 34 will cost over 
$100 million, and 105 are deemed to have significant impacts on small 
business. We need to reduce this regulatory burden on American 
households and small businesses, which costs the economy over $2 
trillion per year.

[[Page 3175]]

  The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 legislative days to 
introduce and pass into law a disapproval resolution overturning a rule 
or a regulation. Once agency actions are overturned using this process, 
agencies are unable to reissue, substantially in the same form, a 
regulation or guidance in the future.
  A little known provision in the Congressional Review Act requires 
Federal agencies to submit to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office a report on the rule or regulation. The 60-day 
clock for congressional action begins either when the rule is published 
or when Congress receives this report, whichever comes later.
  Independent studies have shown many rules since 1996 have been 
implemented without this report, often due to Federal agencies' push to 
hastily implement new rules. This means that there are still many rules 
and regulations that may still be eligible for Congress to overturn 
using the Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions process.
  My amendment to the SCRUB Act requires the Retrospective Regulatory 
Review Commission to consider for removal rules and regulations for 
which Congress did not receive the report as required by the 
Congressional Review Act. According to GAO, approximately 29 percent of 
final rules failed to submit required reports in 2013. This prudent 
step will help give Congress the opportunity to, where appropriate, 
make use of the Congressional Review Act disapproval process to 
expedite the rollback of flawed rules and regulations that are choking 
our economy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, again I claim the time in opposition, but 
I will not oppose this amendment even though it does nothing to change 
the substance of the SCRUB Act or reduce the danger that it poses to 
the health and safety of the American public.
  This amendment would add another criterion to identify which rules 
the commission would recommend for repeal, specifically, whether an 
agency has complied with the requirements of title 5 U.S.C., section 
801(a)(1)(A).
  That section requires agencies, prior to promulgating a rule, to 
submit to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General a report 
containing a copy of the rule; a concise general statement relating to 
the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and the proposed 
effective date of the rule.
  So this amendment would require this unelected commission to report 
to Congress on what information Congress has or has not received. This 
just underscores the point that Congress should do its own job rather 
than passing this bill to set up a commission to do our job for us.
  Like the other criteria in the bill, Representative McSally's 
amendment does nothing to address the SCRUB Act's focus on the costs of 
the rules. The amendment fails to make sense of the CutGo provision, 
which would result in the repeal of rules with little regard for how 
these rules have benefited and protected the American public.
  The amendment fails to address the fact that agencies are already 
doing a retrospective review of regulations.
  This amendment fails to reduce the $30 million price tag that the 
American public would be responsible for paying to create the unelected 
commission under this bill.
  The amendment fails to reduce the commission's virtually unlimited 
authority to subpoena witnesses or documents.
  This amendment is nothing more than a window dressing, and it is 
nice. It does not address any of the SCRUB Act's failings and dangers 
that it poses to the health and safety of all Americans.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, again, my amendment is simple under the 
SCRUB Act. Right now, these agencies are not complying with the law. 
They have not submitted necessary reports to Congress and the GAO. So 
this amendment is simply asking, among other things that are being 
reviewed in this act, that we take a look at which reports have not 
been submitted, therefore, which are not in compliance with the 
Congressional Review Act so that we can decide whether any of those 
would be appropriate for disapproval resolutions or, quite frankly, 
whether the rule is even one that should be enforced because it hasn't 
complied with the law.
  This is a good amendment. I appreciate our colleagues supporting it.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Chair, the cumulative cost of regulations in our 
country is now at the tune of $2 trillion, and it costs us $60 billion 
just to enforce those regulations every year. With all due respect, 
that is not window dressing. When you take a look at those numbers, it 
is clear to see that the bureaucratic state of our Federal Government 
is threatening our job creators and killing our economy.
  Today, we have an opportunity to reverse course on the stifling 
regulations flowing from Washington by passing H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, 
as amended here by my colleague, Congresswoman Martha McSally.
  The SCRUB Act will establish a commission to review existing Federal 
regulations and identify for Congress which of those place unnecessary 
costs on our economy. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. McSally) will take the SCRUB Act a step further by 
requiring this commission to consider for removal all regulations 
dating back to 1996 that did not comply with the law that states that 
there must be an accompanying report to Congress. According to the GAO, 
that is almost 30 percent of final rules.
  All of this is done in a manner consistent with my colleague's 
standalone bill, the Require CRA Compliance Act, that I was also proud 
to join her in sponsoring.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Chair, in closing, we owe this to the American 
people. We owe this to my children and your grandchildren. We owe this 
to our local job creators to break the chains of these burdensome 
regulations and, once again, unleash the spirit of American innovation 
and enterprise that made this country the envy of the world by passing 
the SCRUB Act and the McSally amendment.
  Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Arrington for his 
support. I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Mr. Smith for their hard 
work on this important legislation. I want to urge the passage of my 
amendment and encourage my colleagues to support the underlying 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Plaskett

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam 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 24, strike lines 12 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (k) Prohibition on Funding.--No funds are authorized to 
     carry out the requirements of this Act, and no funds 
     authorized or appropriated by any other Federal law may be 
     made available to carry out the requirements of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.

[[Page 3176]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is simple. It rescinds the authority to spend up to $30 
million on a commission to do what Congress and the agencies already 
do.
  If you want duplication, look no further than this bill. It seeks to 
reduce the size of bureaucracy by establishing a new commission to 
serve a function already performed without the contribution of an 
additional $30 million in taxpayer funding.
  Now, $30 million may not be too much to the true benefactors of this 
bill on K Street, but to seniors, veterans, students, and workers all 
across this country, it can go a long way. For example, Social 
Security's meager 0.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for 2017 
amounts to $4 more in benefits per month for the average beneficiary. 
That means that $30 million would be enough to double that cost-of-
living adjustment for 7.5 million seniors.
  We all know that the cost of additional sequestration cuts on 
education, health, and the environmental protection loom at the end of 
this fiscal year.
  The double talk and schizophrenia of my esteemed colleagues on the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee who pushed this bill through 
the committee has me truly concerned for the mental state of this 
Congress. They want to defund Planned Parenthood, but want to fund a 
nine-member task force at a cost of $30 million.
  They drag their feet and hem and haw to assist Flint, Michigan, in 
funding to promote clean water and save the lives of a community, but 
we can sure fund a task force to duplicate already-carried-out 
activities by the Federal Government so we can say we did it to the 
tune of $30 million.
  The chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee wouldn't 
allow the people of the Virgin Islands, for 100 years as part of the 
United States, to receive $100,000 already earmarked for our interior. 
But, we have money for this bill. And let's not discuss all the block-
granting discussions going on around here in this Congress.
  Today, the House majority is now asking to authorize $30 million on a 
bill that would handcuff enforcement agencies in their ability to 
respond to even more pressing new public health and safety problems.
  Let me be clear. Reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on small 
businesses is a goal that we all share. I recognize that some 
regulation is burdensome, and there should be a review of the code to 
determine what can be consolidated or repealed to reduce compliance 
costs.
  One of the things that we seem to agree on is that retrospective 
review is helpful in the regulatory process. But, retrospective review 
is already going on with money that has already been authorized. All of 
the agencies have been required to do this under standing executive 
orders issued by President Obama.
  As has been discussed before, the results have been successful in 
reducing regulations. Agencies have yielded billions of dollars in cost 
savings and reduced reporting requirements through the modification of 
existing regulations.
  People in my district get it that there is a cost to protecting the 
environment, but they know that keeping our workers safe and our waters 
clean is worth it. There can be and is red tape that is unnecessary, 
and there is ongoing work and focus to eliminate and reduce that.
  Could there be ways to improve upon existing review regulations? 
There very well may be, and I am willing to work with anyone on a good 
idea.
  Even if $30 million were to come from elsewhere in the budget instead 
of additional spending, it would be that much less that agencies would 
have to conduct the already ongoing retrospective review process now 
going on.
  Furthermore, we in Congress also have existing responsibility to 
actively conduct oversight of government operations and make 
legislative changes as we see fit.
  There is simply no reason to spend $30 million on this messaging 
effort to ignore the successful work that is already going on by 
qualified people, and to hobble the ability of regulators to safeguard 
public health and safety in the process.
  This Congress has money to throw at solutions in search of a problem, 
but requires cost offsets to provide aid for victims of Flint or toward 
Zika funding.
  Please approve my amendment to save this money.
  Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Ms. Plaskett's 
amendment and just want to drill down on one point, which is, in the 
name of job creation, we have this bill before us, and we are going to 
spend $30 million which will, I suppose, create some jobs here in 
Washington with some folks who sit on the commission and the staff who 
are going to have to populate it.
  But just a couple of days ago, President Trump had the manufacturing 
CEOs of this country at the White House, and what they said was jobs 
exist, but skills don't; that there is a skills gap in this country, 
and that we need to have job training out there to connect people to 
these jobs.
  Well, we have the Workforce Investment Act that was signed into law 
by President Obama in 2014, which created a framework for 
apprenticeship programs, advance manufacturing programs, all the things 
that these CEOs were talking about, and we are underfunding those 
programs--just to take one, the Adult Formula Grants--by just about $30 
million.
  You want to create jobs? Don't spend $30 million on this ridiculous 
commission when, again, we have so many other resources here in 
Washington to review regulations. Let's put that money directly into 
the programs that will create the skill sets so that people can 
actually get a job to support themselves and their families. And don't 
take it from us, take it from the CEOs who were with President Trump 
just a few days ago about the fact that at a time when we have jobs in 
existence, the fact that we are underfunding job training programs is 
just totally criminal.
  Let's use this $30 million in a more productive way that will 
actually connect people to the jobs that are out there in the economy.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Long). The gentleman from Florida is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, the commission is permitted, under this bill, 
to spend $30 million over 5 years for administrative purposes. By 
removing the funding in this amendment, the commission will not be able 
to hire staff, rent office space, establish the public website as 
required in the bill, or hold the public meetings, which are also 
required in the bill. This amendment essentially guts the bill.
  The commission established under this bill has a momentous job ahead 
of it. The Code of Federal Regulations totals more than 178,000 pages. 
This is approximately 36,000 pages of regulations for review every year 
of the 5 years the commission has to conduct its work.
  But it is not just simply reading the pages. There is work behind 
understanding whether the regulations are effective. There is outreach 
and public hearings to understand how the regulations are or aren't 
effective.
  I believe the savings from eliminating unnecessary costs and the 
improved efficiency from weeding out unneeded regulations will far 
outweigh the resources applied to this effort.
  The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that regulations 
impose a cost on the economy of $1.8 trillion. Who bears that cost but 
the consumers? This amendment would gut the bill. $30 million over 5 
years is more than reasonable, considering the economic impact that 
these regulations have had on the American business and the American 
economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the 
bill.

[[Page 3177]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROSS. 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 gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Mr. McNERNEY. 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 31, line 17, insert after ``Code'' the following: ``, 
     except that the term does not include any rule relating to 
     the physical and cyber security of the bulk-power system (as 
     defined in section 215(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824o(a)), including any emergency action to protect and 
     restore reliability of the bulk-power system''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It 
exempts from the bill any agency rule relating to the physical and 
cybersecurity of the bulk power system, including any emergency action 
to protect and restore reliability. The bulk power system is comprised 
of facilities and control systems necessary for operating an 
interconnected electrical transmission network to maintain reliability.
  Our Nation's electrical system touches each and every part of our 
lives, hospitals, schools, transportation, homes, businesses, and our 
national security. Our electrical system is the central element of our 
Nation's critical infrastructure because all other components of our 
infrastructure depend on it.
  The electrical system is composed of 640,000 miles of high-voltage 
transmission lines and more than 6 million miles of distribution lines. 
This network is undergoing a transformation. There are an ever-
increasing number of devices that are connected to the grid; 
technological advancements are allowing for efficiencies and cheaper 
production of power, whether it is renewable energy or natural gas; and 
consumers have more choices and more control. With increased 
digitization, automation and interaction also have enhanced grid 
flexibility and security.
  While these developments present tremendous opportunities, such as 
new jobs and reducing carbon emissions, they also pose additional 
physical and cyber threats to the transmission and distribution 
systems. Stakeholders across the system are facing numerous new threats 
and challenges in detecting problems, responding to intrusions, and 
keeping rates affordable while maintaining reliability. The long-term 
health of the electricity sector is now, more than ever, a shared 
responsibility between communities, consumers, industry, and 
government.
  Despite these challenges, the bulk power system is an example of 
industry stakeholders and the Federal Government working well together, 
when needed, and working independently, when needed and succeeding.
  Transmission and distribution providers have taken it upon themselves 
to establish industry-led standards, best practices, and supply chain 
management when it comes to grid security. They have worked well with 
NERC and FERC in developing Critical Infrastructure Protection 
standards for the bulk power system.
  These Critical Infrastructure Protection standards cover critical 
cyber asset identification, security management, personnel and 
training, electronic security, physical security, systems security, 
incident reporting and response planning, and recovery plans. There are 
72 inactive CIP standards, and 11 that are now subject to enforcement. 
These standards aren't always perfect, but they do represent compromise 
and collaboration.
  A well-protected and reliable grid makes economic sense. Power 
outages and disturbances can cost more than $180 billion annually, and 
data suggests that electrical system outages attributable to weather-
related events are increasing, costing the U.S. economy an estimated 
$20 billion to $55 billion annually. Electric companies are projected 
to spend more than $7 billion of their own money on cybersecurity alone 
by the year 2020, and are expected to invest nearly $53 billion to 
enhance the grid.

                              {time}  1530

  These are significant investments, but essential investments as well. 
A more resilient, secure electric sector is something we all benefit 
from. It will continue to require investments at all levels, including 
from the Federal Government.
  We should enhance funding for our national laboratories that have 
partnered together via the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium. We should 
provide high levels of funding for the Office of Electricity and its 
mission to ensure the energy delivery system is more secure, resilient, 
and reliable. We must promote R&D that helps bring new, innovative 
technologies to the grid.
  We will always struggle to keep ahead of those bad actors who are 
seeking to attack us, but we can establish metrics, procedures, and 
technological capabilities that allow us to respond and adapt.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that we should work to identify 
and remove regulations that are no longer relevant. The Critical 
Infrastructure Protection standards have worked. My amendment ensures 
that Federal agencies will have the flexibility needed to respond to 
challenges without sacrificing any other necessary protections.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, this bill requires the commission to identify 
regulations that should be repealed. These are all regulations under 
the bill. While I appreciate my colleague from California's efforts in 
his amendment, I just cannot support it.
  The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date, 
no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete. No regulations 
should be exempt from this bill.
  Ensuring the physical and cybersecurity of the bulk power system is 
absolutely important and critical. We should know whether or not the 
existing regulations are effective and are useful.
  This amendment would prevent the commission from reviewing these 
important regulations and ensuring that they are current and effective.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. 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. McNerney).
  The amendment was rejected.


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. 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 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and 
     update the table of contents accordingly):

                          TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

     SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM.

       The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set 
     of rules relating to the safety of the national airspace 
     system.


[[Page 3178]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today is a 
probusiness, pro-innovation amendment. This would exempt any 
regulations that affect the safety of our National Airspace System.
  It is important to note that commercial drone operations are only 
possible because of FAA rules. Last August, the FAA's small UAS rule--
unmanned aerial systems rule--opened the door for small businesses to 
use unmanned systems easily and without cumbersome paperwork.
  The current inaction on the ``flights over people'' rule could limit 
UAS operations, such as news reporting, disaster relief, and public 
safety from becoming a reality. As a result, many businesses and the 
country could lose out on the full societal and economic benefits of 
UAS.
  Once UAS are fully integrated into the national airspace, the full 
benefits of these tools will help businesses to expand and our economy 
to grow--with a projected 100,000 jobs and over $82 billion in economic 
impact over the next decade. That is why this particular amendment is 
supported by the UAV Coalition as well as the Automated Vehicles 
Symposium.
  But we need action from regulatory authorities to fully integrate UAS 
into our airspace. Without my amendment, the SCRUB Act has the 
potential to stifle a growing industry and prevent the modernization of 
air traffic. I want to reiterate: UAS operators need guidance and 
regulations from the FAA so they can operate safely and without 
unnecessary paperwork.
  I urge the House to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the bill requires the 
commission to identify regulations--all regulations--which should be 
repealed. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out 
of date, no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete. 
Again, no regulations should be exempt from this bill.
  Ensuring the safety of the National Airspace System is critically 
important. We should know whether or not the existing regulations are 
effective and useful. This amendment would prevent the commission from 
reviewing these very important regulations and ensuring that they are 
not only current but also effective.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, investments into this particular 
industry are predicated on whether or not regulations are predictable. 
As a former small-business man, I can tell you that investments will 
not happen if there is an unelected commission that exists that might 
change the very rules and regulations upon which current investments 
have been made.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the argument about an 
unelected commission, I must say that these regulations are already 
being promulgated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
  Again, if we are going to have to have a review--an oversight--of our 
regulatory scheme, we should not exempt any regulations. I, therefore, 
would submit that this amendment would do just that. It would create a 
slippery slope of exceptions. Therefore, I, again, would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, as a small-business man, I can tell 
you that small businesses rely on the predictability of regulatory 
rules and the regulatory regime. This commission is creating 
unpredictability in the system. Therefore, it is going to stifle 
investment, it is going to prevent innovation, and it is going to 
further throw a monkey wrench into our National Airspace System.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 115-20.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. 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 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and 
     update the table of contents accordingly):

                          TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

     SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO AIRPORT NOISE RESTRICTIONS.

       The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set 
     of rules relating to airport noise restrictions.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, my second amendment to the SCRUB 
Act would protect the countless citizens, including many of my own 
constituents, who depend on airport noise restrictions to sleep through 
the night or learn uninterrupted in school.
  Thousands of my constituents near O'Hare International Airport 
benefit from these restrictions, as do the millions of people that live 
near major airports across the country. As the father of a 10-month-old 
baby girl, I can speak from experience to the value of an uninterrupted 
night of sleep.
  Many FAA noise rules are the product of careful discussions between 
airports and local authorities. While noise restrictions have a slight 
economic impact on air carriers, the economic benefit to surrounding 
communities more than outweighs this.
  The unelected commission created by this bill should not have the 
ability to overturn restrictions that have been carefully considered by 
local governments, the FAA, and airport officials.
  Without FAA noise restrictions, people and businesses would suffer, 
Mr. Chairman. This would decrease property values in my district, make 
it harder for people to start a business, and have a negative effect on 
people's health.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that airport noise is very 
annoying.
  Effective regulations that protect our communities from unwarranted 
noise are very important. However, regulations that impose excessive 
and costly restrictions that are ineffective at achieving their goals 
do not help anyone.
  Why not take a look at these regulations and just consider whether 
they are working?
  If they are, then the regulation stays in place and we continue to 
protect our

[[Page 3179]]

communities from unwarranted noise. If those regulations are not 
working, then we repeal them and put in regulations that achieve the 
goals and reduce costs.
  There is no reason why we should create special carve-outs from the 
commission's consideration.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, these particular rules and 
regulations were crafted carefully at the local level, and I believe 
very strongly that this commission, which is a Federal commission, 
should not somehow upset the balance that has been achieved through 
local voices having a say in these particular regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that regulations are 
regulations. They need to be reviewed at every level. What the SCRUB 
Act offers is that opportunity. What this amendment does is limit that 
ability.
  For those reasons, I, again, urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, the SCRUB Act should not have the 
ability to review regulations and rules that were developed by local 
people with local concerns in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-20 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. DeSaulnier of California.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Plaskett of the Virgin Islands.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. DeSaulnier) 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 348, 
noes 75, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 105]

                               AYES--348

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Bacon
     Barletta
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                                NOES--75

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Biggs
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cook
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Gaetz
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Grothman
     Harris
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hollingsworth
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lucas
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     Messer
     Mooney (WV)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Russell
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Turner
     Walker
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Williams
     Wittman

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Crawford
     Davis, Rodney
     Hudson
     Moore
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Wagner
     Zinke

                              {time}  1611

  Messrs. BRAT, WILLIAMS, KELLY of Mississippi, GAETZ, PITTENGER, 
WALKER, GROTHMAN, KING of Iowa, BRIDENSTINE, SMITH of Missouri, MASSIE, 
CARTER of Georgia, and WITTMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. RICE of South Carolina, ISSA, Ms. JENKINS of 
Kansas, Messrs. LoBIONDO, HOLDING, ROUZER, NORCROSS, WOMACK,

[[Page 3180]]

RASKIN, COLLINS of Georgia, Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas, 
WOODALL, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. COLE, SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, 
GUTHRIE, UPTON, McCAUL, TIPTON, ROSKAM, DeSANTIS, SHIMKUS, Ms. 
HANABUSA, Messrs. COHEN, RUTHERFORD, Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California, 
and Mr. SMUCKER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Plaskett

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The unfinished business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 243, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               AYES--181

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

                               NOES--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     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--6

     Davis, Rodney
     Hudson
     Moore
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Wagner
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1614

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


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Krishnamoorthi) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 234, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     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
     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
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)

[[Page 3181]]


     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     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)
     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
     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
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis, Rodney
     Hudson
     Maloney, Sean
     Moore
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Wagner
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1618

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


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Krishnamoorthi) 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 192, 
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                               AYES--192

     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)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     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
     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
     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
     Rohrabacher
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     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--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (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)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     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 (TX)

[[Page 3182]]


     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     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--8

     Chu, Judy
     Davis, Rodney
     Hensarling
     Hudson
     Moore
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Wagner
     Zinke


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1622

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Joyce) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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. 998) 
to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules 
and sets of rules, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________