[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3247-3253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1004, REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF 
   2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1009, OIRA INSIGHT, 
                     REFORM, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 156

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1004) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to require the publication of information 
     relating to pending agency regulatory actions, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment 
     to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House

[[Page 3248]]

     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1009) to 
     amend title 44, United States Code, to require the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs to review regulations, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-4. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The gentleman from Texas 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. It 
is a fair rule that enables thoughts and ideas from both sides of the 
aisle to be considered on the House floor today. It enables us to 
proceed with the work that the American people have sent us here to 
accomplish. It is of great measure of the work that we are doing today. 
We had an extensive and long committee hearing at the Committee on 
Rules yesterday with witnesses from both sides of the aisle, 
Republicans and Democrats, who felt strongly about the issues and ideas 
that were before them and the ideas which will be presented on the 
floor of the House of Representatives today, the underpinning of which 
are entitled to give the American people a better shot at a better life 
not only from a business perspective, economic development, but also 
the creation of jobs in the United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying legislation 
contained in this rule. These bipartisan initiatives will enhance 
transparency, provide for a check on Federal agencies, and I believe 
help create a better process in the Federal Government for the people 
we serve, which are the people of this great Nation.
  Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 to ensure 
that the public had an opportunity to provide expertise, opinions, and 
other comments during the rulemaking process that takes place in the 
administration. It was designed to provide guarantees of due process in 
administrative procedures for self-governing American citizens who have 
to live under these rules that are promulgated by those unelected and 
not necessarily known by the American people.
  The Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, as it is commonly 
referred to, was designed to require agencies to keep the public 
informed of the information and ideas, procedures, and rules, and to 
provide a means for public participation in the rulemaking process that 
would take place here in Washington, D.C.
  Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Federal bureaucrats over 
years and previous administrations have exploited the broad language of 
the Administrative Procedure Act to focus the rulemaking process solely 
for special interest reasons. Sometimes it is groups, sometimes it is 
ideas, and sometimes it is against the voices of the average American 
who wishes to participate in this process. This clearly was not the 
APA's legislative intent and reflects yet another encroachment on 
Congress' Article I powers which are enshrined in the United States 
Constitution.
  This shift away from the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act, 
known as the APA, has meant that most agency deliberations are carried 
out without a record or even a public review of those decisions that 
are made. Additionally, and possibly more troubling, agencies have 
undermined the purpose and the spirit of the notice-and-comment process 
by actively campaigning in support of their ideas using government 
resources and processes to that advantage.
  The clearest example of this abuse can be found recently and 
numerously at the Environmental Protection Agency, known as the EPA. 
After issuing the waters of the United States notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the EPA undertook a public campaign utilizing social media 
platforms to solicit support for what was, at the time, a promulgated 
rule. Following this abuse, the GAO issued a report finding that the 
EPA violated propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use 
of their fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations.
  The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 helps ensure transparency in the 
rulemaking process by prohibiting Federal agencies from anonymously 
issuing statements for propaganda purposes, in other words, an agency 
lobbying for itself, its ideas, as opposed to the public comment 
period, final rulemaking, and then issues and ideas being discussed 
with and by the people of the country. Specifically, H.R. 1004 requires 
agencies to make available online information about public 
communications on pending regulatory actions.
  Further, H.R. 1004 requires that agencies ``expressly disclose that 
the Executive agency is the source of the information to the intended 
recipients.''
  Why is this important?
  This is important because too many times information is provided 
without the basis of the facts behind it. It is opinion, Mr. Speaker. 
When members of the public see information that is provided, a source 
should be behind that information.
  Further, H.R. 1004 prohibits agencies from ``soliciting support for 
or promoting . . . pending agency regulatory action.'' A simple concept 
of transparency and, I believe, professionalism that both sides of the 
aisle should not only demand, but also welcome from any executive 
agency, regardless of who is in the White House. It is in the best 
interest of the American public, and transparency and honesty related 
to that should be above reproach. Unfortunately, this has also not been 
the instance, as there are abuses and overreach by Federal agencies and 
unelected bureaucrats.
  Presidents of both parties have required a centralized review of 
regulations since the 1970s. This has largely been handled by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as it is 
commonly referred to. Every President since President Ronald Reagan has 
required a centralized review of regulations at OIRA so that an agency 
can do cost-benefit analysis of regulatory actions, which means there

[[Page 3249]]

is a centralized process for the administration to look at what they 
do.
  In 1993, President Bill Clinton put into place Executive Order 12866 
to designate OIRA as the repository of expertise concerning regulatory 
issues. The executive order limited OIRA's review of regulations to 
only significant rules changes, those that have an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more. This office is responsible for 
reviewing the regulatory actions at both the proposed and final 
rulemaking stages. Unfortunately, lately, agencies have blatantly 
ignored the principles of the executive order from President Clinton, 
Executive Order 12866, and other governing authorities, including those 
requiring State, local, and tribal consultation in the rulemaking 
process have been ignored.
  According to a policy center at George Mason University, agencies 
usually satisfy 60 percent or less of the requirements called for in 
the regulatory analysis, meaning that certain times we have found the 
executive branch did not even follow the well-known processes that are 
there to protect the people who they are trying to provide services to. 
Mr. Speaker, we believe that is partially why we are here today, to 
clarify and correct these problems.
  For example, between 2000 and 2013, 98 percent of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's final rules contained no estimated compliance 
costs. That means that the agency chose not to follow the process that 
is prescribed by the executive order. Additionally, the EPA routinely 
justifies its regulatory activities by claiming benefits from matters 
unrelated to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, you can well see 
why there is consternation not only among people in the United States, 
but uncertainty with business that is attempting to follow the well-
understood rules and regulations and the processes that go therein only 
to find out that our government chooses not to follow the rules and 
regulations that they should be following.
  H.R. 1009 codifies the requirement for OIRA to conduct a review of 
significant regulations to ensure the regulations are consistent with 
applicable law and the principles set forth in the executive order. It 
also establishes new transparency measures such as requiring increased 
disclosure when extending review time, explanations about regulations 
that are dropped from the unified agenda, and a redline of changes that 
agencies make to regulations while it is under review by OIRA.
  OIRA review is important to provide a double check on agencies to 
ensure not only compliance with the law, but the well-understood 
proposals that are made by agencies and the processes that they expect 
to understand in that process. That is why the main tenets of the 
underlying legislation have been supported by Presidents in the past, 
Members of Congress in the past, and even the judiciary that should 
expect that processes and procedures are followed properly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a note, if I can, and add into the 
Record a Statement of Administration Policy that came from one of our 
former colleagues, now the Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick 
Mulvaney. Mr. Mulvaney, in his new duties as the Director of the OMB, 
provided his first Statement of Administration Policy. It is concerning 
exactly the act that we are speaking about. I would like to 
congratulate the young Director of the OMB for his ascension to not 
only an important role, but helping the United States Congress to 
clarify for the American people that which is in their best interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 998--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily 
                         Burdensome (SCRUB) Act

                (Rep. Smith, R-MO, and three cosponsors)


              H.R. 1004--Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017

               (Rep. Walberg, R-MI, and eight cosponsors)


        H.R. 1009--OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act

               (Rep. Mitchell, R-MI, and four cosponsors)

       The Administration is committed to reducing regulatory 
     burden on all Americans. On January 30, 2017, President Trump 
     signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and 
     Controlling Regulatory Costs, which provides for repeal of 
     two regulations for every new one issued. This historic step 
     accelerates the retrospective review process to make common-
     sense reforms to regulations across the Federal Government. 
     Legislation is helpful where it amends agencies' regulatory 
     processes to ensure they are transparent, and appropriately 
     balance costs and benefits.
       Each of these bills would address different aspects of the 
     regulatory process. The SCRUB Act, H.R. 998, addresses the 
     numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary 
     regulations that have accumulated throughout government. The 
     Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, H.R. 1004, would restrict 
     the use of agency funds to advocate on behalf of regulations, 
     and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, H.R. 
     1009, would codify specific executive branch regulatory 
     review procedures.
       The Administration supports the SCRUB Act, the Regulatory 
     Integrity Act, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and 
     Accountability Act. The Administration looks forward to 
     working with the Congress on technical and other amendments 
     to these bills.
       The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Congress 
     to rationalize the regulatory system and looks forward to 
     continuing to work together to reform the regulatory process.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule and both 
underlying bills, H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and 
Accountability Act; and H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act.
  These two bills that would be debated under this rule were both 
reported out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
without a single Democratic vote. So these are not bipartisan bills. 
They were reported out of committee only by Republicans. The bills 
threaten transparency, undermine the independent authority of 
government agencies, and weaken the separation of powers between our 
three branches of government at a time in our history when we need it 
the most.
  I sat in this Chamber last night as President Trump spoke about 
fixing healthcare and immigration systems, but we haven't seen those 
plans yet. Instead, all we have seen are these kinds of not-bipartisan 
bills that don't accomplish a lot.
  Now, these two bills claim to offer accountability and integrity in 
the rulemaking process, but when you look past their title, you see 
what they really are is just another backdoor attack on American 
workers, an attack on our environment and protecting our public health.
  First with regard to H.R. 1009, much has been said since the start of 
this Congress about the importance of our checks and balances in our 
system. We have a new President who isn't shy about blurring the lines 
of separation between the executive, legislative, and even the judicial 
branches of government. He publicly condemned a judge based on his 
ethnicity in a private case. He also attacked a judge who struck down 
his order on immigration. I find it troubling to be debating a bill 
that would make government agencies even more dependent on the judgment 
of the White House when many of us question the judgment of the 
gentleman currently occupying the Oval Office.
  Under current law, independent agencies, like the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, and many others don't need approval from the 
administration to move forward with a new rule or regulation. 
Misleadingly characterized as simplifying the existing executive order, 
what this bill would actually do is require all rules made by 
independent government agencies to be sent to the White House, 
centralizing the power of the White House and the power of the 
President.

                              {time}  1245

  This bill effectively mandates improper influence by the White House.
  In addition, the bill repeals language that exempts rules considered 
to be lifesaving from having to undergo a full review process.
  If those reasons weren't enough to dissuade my colleagues from voting 
in favor of this rule, let me briefly discuss

[[Page 3250]]

the unlimited review window this bill would create to derail and delay 
important rules. Frankly, important provisions like this are the 
reasons why the American people, often rightfully, accuse the 
government of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  By giving the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs unlimited 
time to review rules, Congress would effectively allow the White House 
to bury rules in red tape and paperwork, the very red tape and 
paperwork and bureaucracy that the American people are frustrated with. 
This bill is a recipe to make government less efficient rather than 
more efficient. It would grind the rulemaking process to a halt by 
burying the very limited staff of the White House under a whole array 
of rules from independent agencies that, with no timeline, would simply 
sit in the White House either going nowhere or being studied by 
committee after committee after committee. Perhaps, after several 
years, they will see the light of day after even more bureaucrats have 
had the chance, at your taxpayer expense, to read those rules.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill 
makes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs somehow more 
accountable by Congress by authorizing the statute, but that is not the 
case. This bill, like many other bills we have seen in this Congress, 
frankly, is a solution in search of a problem.
  I don't disagree that the rulemaking process should be simplified, 
but there is a collaborative, bipartisan way to do that. This bill does 
not represent that idea. If passed, H.R. 1009 would reduce the ability 
of independent government agencies to work effectively, create 
additional paperwork and bureaucracy, and transfer significant power 
and authority to the White House and the President.
  Frankly, this bill is a serious threat on our checks and balances at 
a time we need it the most. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to take that into account when voting on the rule and the bill 
today.
  The second bill under this rule is H.R. 1004, the so-called 
Regulatory Integrity Act. It is another example of Republican attacks 
on health and safety protections.
  The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 requires executive agencies to 
provide extensive and, often, gratuitous information on their websites 
related to any pending regulatory action they are seeking to make. 
Again, it is difficult to find a Member of this body who doesn't 
believe that we want more transparency, more accountability, and more 
streamlining of regulations. Of course, those are priorities for the 
country. This bill does not do that.
  I don't believe an outright attack on our rulemaking process meant to 
protect our health, meant to protect people from fraud and abuse, and 
giving yet more hoops for agency officials to jump through in doing the 
job that Congress has asked them to do, in no way is that the correct 
way to go about increasing transparency in government. This bill makes 
it more difficult for all of the agencies that we have set up, that we 
have directed, to do their job: to protect the American public.
  The new reporting requirements that are included in this bill will 
distract agencies from their core missions of keeping Americans safe 
and, again, bury them under mounds and mounds of additional paperwork 
requirements. Many of these agencies have seen their budgets cut by the 
Republicans, and the reporting requirements will take up even more of 
their very limited capacity that they have under the budget constraints 
they operate at.
  As many of us know, this bill was born out of a 2015 GAO study that 
determined that the Environmental Protection Agency had violated 
certain restrictions during the rulemaking process for waters of the 
U.S. To me, the fact that that determination was made by an independent 
government agency is proof that our oversight process works. If there 
is a bipartisan bill we can do to implement best practices, I think 
that we could have strong Democratic support for that. This bill does 
not do that.
  Republicans are ignoring the fact that the GAO also concluded that 
``the agency complied with the applicable requirements,'' and were so 
concerned with providing the public with opportunities to comment that 
the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers conducted over 400 meetings across 
the country. If this bill passes the House, the ability of agencies to 
do those kinds of outreach efforts and stakeholder involvement efforts 
would be limited. It would be limited by vast and unnecessary 
additional work, red tape, and bureaucratic reporting requirements that 
would be mandated under this bill with the same limited resources they 
have today. I think that it would be better use of their limited 
resources to do those kinds of field opportunities across the country, 
giving American stakeholders and people involved the opportunity to 
testify about how those rules affect them.
  The most immediate and certain effect of this bill would be to 
virtually prohibit agencies from disclosing to the public any benefits 
that agency actions would have in protecting the American people. If an 
agency is no longer allowed to explain how the rulemaking process would 
benefit and protect the American people, the public, of course, would 
view this as some sort of burdensome regulation. Perhaps that is the 
goal of this bill from a propaganda perspective.
  Finally, this bill will ban agencies from soliciting support for 
their regulations, seemingly forgetting that current law already does 
this. If there is need to clarify it again, we can certainly do so in a 
bipartisan way.
  This unsettling trend of trying to, in fact, regulate regulations 
actually leads to additional bureaucracy and paperwork. It is a 
disservice to American workers and families, to our environment, and to 
many Americans who don't know if they can make their rent or have 
health insurance at the end of the month. It is a disservice to the 
thousands of military and civilian workers no longer able to seek 
employment in the Federal Government and a disservice to so many 
American children and adults.
  The fact that we are even considering these bills illustrates that 
the priorities in Congress are not in line with the priorities of the 
people that we represent. I have not heard an outcry from my 
constituents on any of these issues. I hear about health care. I hear 
about immigration reform, improving our schools, making college more 
affordable, not that we need more administrative hurdles to the 
rulemaking process. I haven't heard it once from a single constituent 
at 51 townhalls I had last session.
  The passage of this bill will put a significant administrative burden 
on government agencies that issue rules to protect Americans. It would 
limit the ability of the agencies that we set up under our authorizing 
statutes to do their job: to protect the health and safety of the 
American people.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject these bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful observations on this rule and 
on the bills. I will acknowledge that yesterday at the Rules Committee 
there was a vigorous discussion--I thought, professional on both 
sides--where there was an idea about the intent of this bill and what 
it would, in essence, lay off on the administration, or any 
administration, in trying to make sure that they complied with the law.
  I will tell you that our Appropriations chairman, as well as the 
Appropriations Committee, would be able to deal effectively with this 
if they believed they needed more money in order to accomplish these 
efforts. But I think that transparency is an important issue, and I 
think that our authorizing and appropriating committees will understand 
that, as they deal with agencies, a better dialogue, whether it be 
Republican or Democrat in office, needs to be able to deal with 
Congress, provide us information, provide the American people with 
information, and be forthright about the decisions that they are going 
to make.
  I think that the new Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick 
Mulvaney,

[[Page 3251]]

responded in his advice back--meaning the statement of administrative 
policy that directly took on this issue--that he looked forward to not 
only working with Congress on their needs, but also complying with the 
spirit of the law. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing today 
is providing information to a brand-new administration and saying to a 
brand-new administration that it is okay if you have your ideas about 
those issues that you would wish to take up, but you have to be 
forthright about what you are doing. You have to provide information 
not only to Congress, but the American people; and when you propose 
changes or rules, you have to be honest and forthright in doing that.
  It may be a little bit more money, but this Congress will stand 
behind this. And I believe that the new Trump administration, at least 
through my conversations with our new President and the head of OMB, 
they intend for across the government, across a new administration to 
attempt to be forthright and direct about what they are doing and why 
we are doing it. Now, more than ever, whether you are a Republican or 
Democrat or not--you could be a person back home--you are entitled to 
try and clarify and ask information. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee, who served his State 
honorably as their agriculture commissioner.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding me this time.
  I am certainly in favor of the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, 
which I think will provide necessary transparency in the regulatory 
process by requiring agencies to post all public comments issued during 
a proposed rulemaking, which sounds simple enough. I cosponsored this 
legislation because I strongly believe, and I firmly believe, the 
public comment process is critical to ensure Federal regulations are 
drafted to protect the American people and not to punish them.
  Unfortunately, far too often, agencies either ignore or fail to 
incorporate the public's input and suggestions when proposing and 
finalizing these important rules. Many regulatory actions impose 
billions of dollars in compliance and other costs on industries, on 
consumers, on small businesses, on farmers, and on families while 
bureaucrats ignore the meaningful input, suggested improvements, and 
the real concerns being voiced by the very people that will be most 
affected by their actions.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure requires more transparency and 
accountability of Federal agency communications about proposed and 
pending regulations. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency 
have continually violated Federal laws and appropriations restrictions 
that prohibit the use of Federal funds for lobbying, advocacy, and 
propaganda efforts.
  I know many are aware of the EPA's unlawful social media campaign 
advocating for the waters of the United States rule, the WOTUS rule; 
however, an even more egregious example recently occurred in my own 
home State of Washington. The EPA-funded What's Upstream campaign used 
grant awards to fund a website, radio ads, and billboards depicting 
dead fish and polluted water, alleging that farmers and the agriculture 
industry were responsible. The website helped visitors email their 
State legislators to advocate for 100-foot stream buffer zones around 
farms and other agricultural operations, despite prohibitions against 
such advocacy.
  As a lifelong farmer, I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was 
insulted by the blatant lies this campaign had spread about farmers; 
and as a Member of Congress, I am outraged that the EPA continues to 
award grant funding to the entities responsible for this, I think, 
despicable and deceitful antifarmer campaign. I believe Congress must 
ensure Federal agencies follow the law to prevent future libelous 
campaigns like What's Upstream from ever receiving another cent of 
taxpayer dollars.
  H.R. 1004 prohibits lobbying in support of proposed rules and 
requires agencies to track the details of all public communications 
about pending regulatory actions, while establishing clear standards 
for prohibited activities. This will guarantee that both the public and 
Congress understand how Federal agencies communicate with the public 
about pending regulations, and these reasonable restrictions will 
support transparency and accountability across the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, agencies should consider comments from the public and 
incorporate reasonable changes so that proposed Federal regulations can 
be revised and refined using that valuable public feedback before they 
are finalized. However, too often, Federal bureaucrats simply go 
through the motions and end up ignoring the public's input while they 
happily flout Federal law and create campaigns designed to garner 
support for their preferred proposals. Federal agencies must not treat 
their proposed regulations as final. By doing so, they are ignoring the 
voice and the will of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important rule and the 
underlying bill; then, together, we can return transparency, we can 
return accountability, and we can return public input to the Federal 
rulemaking process once and for all.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has any remaining speakers?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do not have 
additional speakers. I would wish to not only close myself, but to 
present a little bit more information. I would allow the gentleman, if 
he were prepared to offer his close, I would do the same.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned over the reports from our 
intelligence community regarding foreign interference in our most 
recent election. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation, H.R. 356, the 
Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would create an independent 
commission to investigate the foreign interference in our 2016 
election.
  This is not a partisan matter. Both Democrats and Republicans have 
called for this investigation and a full accounting for the American 
people. Frankly, the American people deserve to know what happened, and 
Congress has the responsibility to get to the bottom of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, when I was back in my district earlier this 
year, again, I didn't have a single constituent raise issues over 
regulatory reform. I did have people ask if we can have a full 
accounting of foreign interference with our more recent election, and, 
if we defeat the previous question, that will give us an opportunity to 
do that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 
I will also urge them to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the 
underlying bills.
  Just so no one is here under any illusions, Republicans do currently 
control the House, and the Senate, and the White House. Frankly, they 
have the ability to set the agenda, and they could use that agenda to 
advance real reforms like infrastructure, or tax reform, or fixing our 
broken immigration system, repairing broken roads and bridges. Today, 
instead, we are debating something so obscure that I don't think the 
American people know what OIRA does or how to pronounce it; another 
bill that has to deal with whether regulations are seen and signed off 
on by the staffers in the White House; and two bills that don't do 
anything

[[Page 3252]]

but undermine the separation of powers, undermine the authority of this 
institution, the United States Congress, and make it harder for public 
agencies to do the job that we have instructed them to do to keep the 
American people safe.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so we can bring up H.R. 356, the Protecting Our 
Democracy Act, and oppose the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been fair and above board. I want 
to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Colorado not only for his 
service on the Rules Committee, but his service today in annunciating 
not just his party's policies and ideas on this, but also his own, as 
he brings a vast business experience not only to Congress and to the 
Rules Committee, but to serve the people of his congressional district.
  However, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I think that this will be 
overwhelming success on a bipartisan basis today, and the reason why 
is, because what we are doing is in the best interest of the American 
people.
  We are doing this because the American people want and need an 
opportunity, as they petition their government, to know that they were 
heard, for their issues and ideas to be seen. And I would think now 
more than ever, especially if it were a prior administration, we would 
be accused of trying to jam down their throats something that we saw 
that was trying to put an undue burden on another administration. But, 
in fact, we are not.
  And so the thoughts and ideas today should be--regardless of the 
administration, regardless whether you completely agree, or somewhat 
disagree, we would want that government, that agency to be able to 
operate with the confidence of the American people. And that means that 
they are not there for their own purposes, or special interests, or for 
them to skew facts or information that might be provided to the 
American people, but, in fact, were opinions as opposed to something 
that was reasonably gained as a result of a scientific fact or 
information that was based on facts of the case.
  Mr. Speaker, the regulatory state in this country has grown 
exponentially and, really, to unprecedented levels. Unelected 
bureaucrats have exceeded their authority, they are creating 
regulations, they are negatively impacting the marketplace, which 
causes a problem for me back home, and Members of Congress back home, 
as businesses talk about following rules and regulations rather than 
the marketplace, and trying to add employees and to turn the cash 
register.
  Accordingly, the American Action Forum, when totaling all available 
regulatory costs reported by executive agencies, the Obama 
administration imposed more than $600 billion in regulatory costs from 
2009 to 2014. That is $600 billion worth of regulatory costs imposed on 
the American people by unelected bureaucrats that have increasingly 
become unaccountable, not only to economic growth, but also to the 
American people, and I believe to Congress.
  Other studies have produced the same conclusion and it is this: that 
runaway regulations have a disastrous effect on the United States 
economy, impacting not only job creation, but also the effective 
opportunity for the free enterprise system to exist.
  Federal agencies should exist to serve the American people. And as 
such, they should heed and respect their views and comments, while 
staying within the parameters of laws passed by lawmakers or ensuring 
the rulemaking process is transparent and free of propaganda.
  Mr. Speaker, we appreciate you allowing us time to debate this on 
behalf of the American people today. This rule and the underlying 
legislation will provide an important check on the regulatory state 
that we find exists today in the United States, and to return 
transparency, responsiveness, and, I believe, honest dignity to the 
American people that we serve, for this overreaching process. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 156 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign 
     Interference in the 2016 Election. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 356.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.


[[Page 3253]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________