[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3372-3387]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
                    REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 1004.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Katko). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 156 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. 1004.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0916


                     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. 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, with Mr. Simpson 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 Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 1004 is sponsored by Representative Tim Walberg, my colleague 
from Michigan. Cosponsors include Representative Farenthold, 
Representative Meadows, Representative Gosar, and myself.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 
2017.
  Every year, agencies promulgate thousands of new regulations and 
impose billions of dollars in regulatory costs on the American public. 
Those rules are conceived of, developed, written, and imposed by 
unelected agency officials--bureaucrats.
  In return for the authority to issue regulations, Congress and the 
American people require two simple things from agencies. First, 
agencies must inform the public about their intended regulatory 
actions--early and accurately--to provide ample time for thoughtful 
feedback and consideration from the public. Second, we want the 
agencies to listen to what the public has to say about the proposed 
regulatory action.
  Making sure the public has an opportunity to participate in this 
process is key. The public comment period is an essential part of 
upholding our democratic values. It ensures Americans have a voice 
heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.
  H.R. 1004 helps preserve and strengthen the integrity of the public 
comment process in several ways. First, the bill defines the parameters 
of how an agency should communicate when asking for and offering a 
proposal and asking for public feedback. H.R. 1004 requires the agency 
to identify itself in communications on the proposal. Imagine that. We 
ask them to identify themselves. The agency must clearly state whether 
it is accepting comments or considering alternatives.
  Most importantly, agency communications during this process must use 
a neutral, unbiased tone. This bill requires agencies to do only what 
you would expect them to do if the request for feedback was genuine and 
sincere. This bill will uphold the purpose and value of the notice and 
comment process enshrined in the Administrative Procedures Act.
  When issuing new regulations, agencies must provide notice of the 
regulation and accept comments from the public before finalizing the 
regulation. Often, regulated entities, small businesses, and subject-
matter experts can provide new insights and perspectives agency 
officials simply do not have and do not understand. The notice and 
comment period allows the public to provide valuable insight to the 
agencies to help them make better regulations, more effective 
regulations, and minimize the adverse impacts.
  However, not every agency takes this opportunity to really listen to 
the public. Often, agencies develop a proposed regulation and assume it 
is the end of the story. In effect, agencies reduce the notice and 
comment process to checking the box.
  A perfect example, unfortunately, is when EPA developed the waters of 
the United States rule, known as WOTUS, EPA's behavior during the 
notice and comment period indicated that the EPA had little interest in 
listening to the public. Quite the contrary.
  EPA used Thunderclap, an online social media platform, to disseminate 
government-sourced messages through unaffiliated individuals to 
encourage the public to provide positive comments. They did not 
identify themselves and used a third party to source comments that 
would support their perspective. The goal was clearly to pad the 
administrative record with positive feedback rather than soliciting 
genuine input in an effort to measure the rule's effect on the public.
  In fact, the Government Accountability Office found the EPA undertook 
a covert propaganda campaign by soliciting social media comments in 
support of their proposed rule. Let me say that again: a covert 
propaganda campaign.
  GAO also told EPA to report this violation to the President and 
Congress because the agency's appropriations were not available for 
those prohibited purposes. They spent taxpayer money--our money--on 
something that was prohibited.
  H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, seeks to shine a 
light on how agencies are communicating about pending regulatory 
actions. This bill simply tells agencies they need to keep

[[Page 3373]]

to the facts and avoid soliciting support when they ought to be 
soliciting comments.
  H.R. 1004 also establishes transparency requirements for the agency 
in how it communicates to the public. The bill requires agencies to 
post on their website some basic information about each communication 
about a pending regulatory action. For each communication, the public 
will be able to see a copy of the communication, the intended audience, 
the method of communication, and the date it was issued--simple 
transparency expectations. Additionally, H.R. 1004 requires agencies to 
post information online about each of their regulatory actions.
  Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Integrity Act will bring integrity back 
to the rulemaking process with transparency and simple guidelines for 
effective and appropriate communication.
  The Regulatory Integrity Act is a good, bipartisan bill. This bill 
received support in the previous Congress, and the House of 
Representatives passed the bill last Congress.
  On February 14, 2017, the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform approved this bill without amendment.
  I thank Congressman Walberg for his leadership on this issue. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be with my distinguished colleague 
from Michigan on this legislation, which is part of a package of bills 
brought forward by the majority, which we believe undermine the ability 
of Federal agencies to effectively promote the public interest.
  To begin with, it is quite clear that this legislation is 
unnecessary. Current law already bans the use of agency funds for 
``publicity or propaganda purposes.'' Current law also currently bars 
agency employees from grassroots lobbying campaign designed to pressure 
Members of Congress to support or to oppose agency proposals.
  So, at the very least, all of this is duplicative, which wouldn't be 
so bad just to add another level of red tape and legislation, except 
for this: If you look at the legislation, under Restriction, part 2, it 
says:
  ``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers 
to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial 
communication that requests comment on or provides information 
regarding the pending agency regulatory action, may not--
  ``(A) directly advocate, in support of or against the pending agency 
regulatory action, for the submission of information to form part of 
the record of review for the pending agency regulatory action. . . .''
  So let's parse that for a moment. What they are saying is that the 
agency may not directly advocate to the public: Please tell us whether 
you are for or against this regulation and why.
  They are not trying to prevent a viewpoint-specific propaganda 
intervention by the agency. This would actually stifle the ability of 
the agency to solicit anybody's point of view to go out on Facebook and 
ask, ``What is your position about this,'' and to use social media to 
solicit the public's input.
  So although the legislation masquerades as an attempt to promote 
government transparency, it actually radically undercuts government 
transparency and the ability of the agencies to solicit the widest 
possible input.
  It also says that the agency may not appeal to the public or solicit 
a third party to undertake advocacy in support of or against the 
pending agency regulatory action.
  Now, I would have no problem if what they were trying to do is simply 
restate the current ban on one-sided propaganda inquiries by an agency 
to get one side to come out and support or oppose an agency rulemaking, 
but that is already against the law.
  What they are trying to do is to cut off the ability of the agency to 
solicit any public input on all sides of the issue.
  Why would we place that kind of duct tape over the Administrative 
Procedure Act?
  Well, one thought, if you look at this proposal in the context of 
everything else they have brought forward this week, they want to try 
to reduce everything to a cost-benefit analysis. That is, what would 
the cost to polluters be? What would the cost to the violators of the 
public interest be?
  They never look at what the benefit to the public is of the 
regulations, and they want to do it behind closed doors and then 
prevent the agencies from going out and aggressively soliciting the 
input of the public on all sides of the issue.
  So we don't see what the need for this proposal is. We believe that 
it will have a severely chilling effect on the ability of agencies to 
do their job. They continually talk about one case, the WOTUS case, the 
waters of the United States case, where I cheerfully and readily admit 
that the agency went too far in terms of campaigning for its proposal. 
But they were called on that. The GAO already determined that they ran 
afoul of the prohibitions.
  So they have one case which was dealt with completely legitimately 
within the law, and they have not cited another case.
  I would gladly yield my time to my distinguished colleague from 
Michigan if he can invoke one other case where there was a problem or 
explain why the resolution of this problem was not sufficient in this 
case, because I think everybody understood that the agency had gone too 
far. It was dealt with. The problem is over.
  So now we have a so-called cure, which is far worse than the 
underlying disease because the so-called cure is going to stifle and 
chill the ability of every Federal agency in the United States 
Government to go out and aggressively solicit public input. That is 
what we want in the agency process.
  Now, yesterday, they just voted to create a new roving 
supercommission that would pore through the rules of all the different 
Federal agencies and bring back a package and then ask us to give a 
thumbs up or a thumbs down so they can just more readily dismantle 
public regulation.
  Let's be very clear about it. We're talking about regulation that 
protects clean air. They rejected an amendment that would carve out the 
Clean Air Act from that bill. We're talking about regulation that 
protects clean water. We're talking about regulation that protects the 
purity of our food and our drugs. We're talking about regulations that 
advance our interests in a clean environment and reduces greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  So it seems like they want to put the whole Federal regulatory 
process into a straitjacket, prevent the public from being involved, 
and prevent the agencies from going out and soliciting public input. 
That doesn't sound like giving government back to the people. That 
sounds like giving government over to billionaires, special interests, 
and big corporate powers that have all the lobbyists in Washington and 
know how to get things done behind closed doors.
  Mr. Chair, I invite my distinguished colleague from Michigan to 
address any of the questions I have if there are any examples that he 
can provide of problems that would yield the need for such a dramatic 
shutdown on the ability of agencies to solicit public input.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who is my colleague and good 
friend.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for leading this 
floor debate today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 
1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017.
  Regardless of the chatter that I believe simply confuses what we want 
to do in good government, this bill, H.R. 1004, is a good government 
transparency bill that is simple in nature and seeks to preserve the 
integrity of the regulatory process; specifically, the public comment 
period.

[[Page 3374]]

  Whether it is EPA or the Department of Labor or any other agencies or 
departments, they have their purpose, but they have to follow the law. 
The public comment period is an essential part of upholding our 
democratic values because it ensures that Americans will have their 
voices heard in the Federal Government's regulatory process.
  Agencies must take the comment period seriously. Unfortunately, we 
have seen instances where agencies seem to believe that the regulatory 
process is simply a perfunctory act that the agency must undertake in 
order to reach a prearranged outcome.
  This became abundantly clear during the EPA's Waters of the U.S., or 
WOTUS, rulemaking process. During that process, Mr. Chairman, the EPA 
undertook a campaign to solicit support and artificially inflate the 
positive reaction to the WOTUS rule. The EPA used the skewed results as 
evidence of public support.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters coming from the 
National Association of Home Builders and the Michigan Farm Bureau to 
attest to this problem.

                                           National Association of


                                                Home Builders,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.
     Hon. Timothy Walberg,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Walberg: On behalf of the 140,000 
     members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 
     I am writing to express NAHB's strong support for H.R. 1004, 
     the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017. This legislation would 
     force agencies to follow an open and transparent federal 
     regulatory rulemaking process by making all aspects of a 
     rulemaking publicly available and preventing federal agencies 
     from illegally influencing the public in order to generate 
     support for a rulemaking.
       Federal agencies are prohibited, by law, from engaging in 
     lobbying, grassroots, and propaganda activities designed to 
     advance a policy agenda. However, in recent rulemakings, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ignored these 
     restrictions and used social media platforms to perpetuate 
     propaganda campaigns that advance their rulemakings. These 
     actions only support the notion that the agency is not 
     interested in a transparent and fair rulemaking process.
       An excellent example of this is when the EPA created a 
     social media campaign on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to 
     counter opposition to its ``Waters of the US'' rulemaking. 
     The agency concealed the fact that its social media messages 
     were coming from within the EPA and deceptively engaged in 
     lobbying efforts designed to kill legislation that was not 
     favorable to their proposed rulemaking. In December 2015, the 
     Government Accountability Office released a report outlining 
     how the EPA participated in covert propaganda and grassroots 
     lobbying and condemned the agency for violating federal law. 
     Federal agencies must respect and uphold the law, and the 
     passage of H.R. 1004 will help to ensure that federal 
     agencies are not lobbying against America's small businesses.
       For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Oversight and 
     Government Reform Committee to support H.R. 1004, the 
     Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, in order to bring 
     transparency and neutrality to the regulatory process.
       Thank you for giving consideration to our views.
           Sincerely,
     James W. Tobin III.
                                  ____



                                         Michigan Farm Bureau,

                             Lansing, Michigan, February 13, 2017.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Elijah Cummings,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings: 
     Michigan Farm Bureau strongly supports the Regulatory 
     Integrity Act of 2017. The bill is a step in the right 
     direction to hold government agencies accountable and for 
     citizens to maintain trust in the government that serves 
     them. Introduced by Rep. Tim Walberg, the bill is scheduled 
     to come before the House Oversight and Government Reform 
     Committee later this week.
       Last year, we heard about an EPA grant being used to fund 
     whatsupstream.com in the state of Washington. This initiative 
     used the following billboard message: ``Unregulated 
     agriculture is putting our waterways at risk'' to urge the 
     public to contact state elected officials. In a similar 
     campaign, GAO issued a legal opinion that EPA violated 
     federal lobbying laws by funding advocacy efforts on the 
     Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Michigan farmers 
     are frustrated when they read about federal agencies trying 
     to sway the public in a way that promotes their own proposed 
     rule before all stakeholders have had a chance to weigh in 
     the rule's merits. These examples only undermine the trust 
     our members place in the agencies meant to serve and protect 
     our citizens.
       We believe it is critical that Congress pass the Regulatory 
     Integrity Act of 2017. We urge all members of the Committee 
     to support this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                        John Kran,
                           Associate National Legislative Counsel.

  Mr. WALBERG. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office 
concluded the EPA overstepped and issued a report saying the EPA 
violated the law and undertook ``covert propaganda'' and grassroots 
lobbying during the process.
  My bill simply seeks to preserve the spirit and purpose of the 
regulatory process by simply telling agencies that they need to keep to 
the facts and not solicit support when they ought to be soliciting 
constructive comments.
  H.R. 1004 simply requires an agency to; one, identify itself as the 
source of information; two, clearly state whether the agency is 
accepting public comments or considering alternatives; and, three, and 
most importantly, speak about the regulations in a neutral, unbiased 
tone.
  People need to have the confidence that the Federal agencies, 
regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, 
are open to their insights an constructive criticism.
  H.R. 1004 will restore the integrity to our regulatory process by 
ensuring agencies are honestly asking for feedback, constructive 
criticism, and dialogue about how to improve upon the agency's existing 
thoughts, not advocating for a predetermined outcome.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan issue. This bill passed the House 
last Congress with bipartisan support. In fact, a similar version was 
offered by my colleague, Representative Peterson from Minnesota, as an 
amendment to H.R. 5 earlier this year. That amendment was approved with 
strong bipartisan support.
  So, once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Regulatory 
Integrity Act.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, the advocates for the legislation returned to this one single 
case, which we all agree about. The GAO ruled that the EPA ran afoul of 
the prohibition on propaganda and on campaigning.
  So the law worked there. The GAO blew the whistle on that. They 
shouldn't be coming out on one side of an issue and running a 
propaganda campaign. The government should not be engaged in 
propaganda. We all agree to that.
  This legislation does something completely different. This 
legislation, rather than just saying a good day's work to the GAO for 
blowing the whistle, it says: Now we are going to tell all the Federal 
agencies and departments that have been out soliciting public input on 
all sides of issues, saying there is a regulation that has come up 
about clean air, about clean water, about food, about drugs, about the 
disposal of nuclear waste, about radioactive materials, and it tells 
them you can't do that anymore. You can't go out and solicit public 
input.
  It places a complete chill on the ability of the government to go out 
and invite public participation in our government. Why? They keep 
returning to one case where the GAO blew the whistle where everybody 
agrees they were out of bounds.
  A flag was thrown on the play, but now they want to use that in order 
to essentially impose a gag rule on Federal agencies across the land 
who are doing our work. The much reviled regulation that the agencies 
are engaged in is an attempt to flesh out the laws that we pass in this 
body because we don't want to be setting all of the particular rules 
about exactly how many pollutants can be in this water, in this stream, 
in this river, in this creek, and so on, because we are not scientific 
experts on how many pollutants can be put into the air here and there. 
So it is delegated to government agencies.
  But when they go through the Administrative Procedure Act and they 
have a rule and comment process, they

[[Page 3375]]

should be able to go out and invite the public to participate.
  Again, I invite my distinguished and thoughtful colleagues on the 
other side to cite one other case. Can they cite one case where the GAO 
did not blow the whistle? Can they cite some other litany of examples 
where there has been a real problem with government agencies being 
overzealous where it has not been corrected by the GAO?
  The silence is deafening.
  They have used the example of one problem that was caught, that was 
corrected, in order to try to demolish the ability of Federal agencies 
to go out and solicit the public's input.
  To me, that is a familiar experience now, because I have been in the 
House of Representatives for just 2 months, and, in the committees I 
serve on, we continue to vote on bills where we have not had a single 
public hearing. We are not hearing from any of the groups.
  I have a letter here objecting to this legislation that has been 
signed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Association for Justice, 
American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial 
Reform, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Autistic Self Advocacy 
Network, BlueGreen Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean 
Water Action, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, 
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress, 
Earthjustice, Economic Policy Institute, Environment America, 
Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace, Homeowners 
Against Deficient Dwellings, Institute for Agriculture and Trade 
Policy, International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, and 
Agricultural Implement Workers, League of Conservation Voters, National 
Association of Consumer Advocates, and on and on and on.
  I would like to have heard from these people in this process, but it 
seems like all we are getting from the other side is an attempt to have 
a curtain of darkness fall over all public process. We would like to 
have hearings. We want groups to be involved. But these people were not 
invited to testify. They didn't have a chance to opine on this.
  Mr. Chair, in general, the problem here is that, rather than making 
government more transparent, we are making government more opaque. 
Rather than making government more open, we are making government more 
closed. Rather than reaching out to the public and inviting it into the 
rulemaking process, we are shutting the door and closing the blinds on 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear to me, even as a freshman: we need 
to correct the record here.
  My colleague from the minority suggests that somehow, magically, the 
GAO just determined they were the police officer, they cried foul, they 
stopped them.
  Let's be clear about this. First, the GAO intervened because they 
were asked to do so by Chairman Inhofe. They investigated after the 
chairman asked them to look into it because of the concerns; not in 
advance, not because they found it independently, but because it was 
such a significant and egregious action that the chairman of the 
committee said: We need to look at this. And they did so.
  Second, it was after the fact. What they found was that it was so 
extraordinarily egregious, they actually cited them for inappropriately 
spending taxpayer money.
  Now, let's talk about what they did. We talk about chilling 
communication. Knowingly, why would you put out something on a social 
media site such as Thunderclap sourcing messages, not identifying 
yourself, if for any other purpose but to create propaganda? Why would 
you do that?
  H.R. 1004 simply requires--and I will repeat them, because the 
minority seems to have a problem understanding this--the agency 
identified itself in its communication on a proposal: hello, this is 
the EPA. We are talking about this problem.
  They make clear they are accepting public comments for and against: 
What do you think about it; what are the problems; will this work? 
Imagine that concept.
  They require that agencies provide feedback on the comments that is 
genuine and sincere and not have already written the final bill--as my 
colleagues says, the perfunctory process.
  That is what it requires. I have a difficult time understanding how 
that chills input from the public. And to be absolutely blunt with you, 
if it chills a few bureaucrats from deciding what they think is best 
rather than what this body believes is best, or, frankly, what the 
courts believe is best, then we have achieved our objective here today.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are finally having some light here on the 
subject.
  My distinguished colleague and fellow freshman from Michigan is most 
concerned about what did take place in the Waters of the United States 
case. He praises the GAO for responding to Senator Inhofe's inquiry.
  We all agree that the GAO determined that the EPA ran afoul of 
existing prohibitions in law on propaganda, on taking a side in an 
issue. A flag was called on the play and the problem was dealt with.
  If you find a kid shoplifting a candy bar, and you catch him, you 
remove him from the store, you tell him not to do it again. You don't 
then go pass a law saying that anybody under 18 cannot enter any 
commercial establishment in the country. The law worked in that 
specific case.
  But, you see, they have taken a sledgehammer to a mosquito, and the 
mosquito was already killed. So now what they are busting up is the 
ability of agencies across the country simply to use the social media 
to go out and to solicit and invite public input into the rulemaking 
process. What are we afraid of?
  Justice Brandeis said that sunshine is the great disinfectant. We 
want the public involved. We want the public's engagement.
  So, again, I invite my thoughtful colleagues on the other side to 
cite one case of an agency doing this that was not dealt with by the 
GAO. I can cite you countless examples of cases where Federal agencies 
have gone online to invite public input in a completely objective and 
neutral way. Now we are creating a chill over that process because of 
this ban on soliciting advocacy from the public on either side of the 
issue.
  So I simply don't get it, and I am puzzled why they continually talk 
about one case which was happily resolved under existing law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record several letters 
opposing the bill.

                                                      Coaltion for


                                          Sensible Safeguards,

                                                February 28, 2017.
     Re House floor vote of H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity 
         Act.

       Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards 
     (CSS), an alliance of over 150 labor, scientific, research, 
     good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and 
     public interest groups, strongly oppose H.R. 1004, the 
     Regulatory Integrity Act.
       The bill is a brazen attack on the public's right to know 
     by micro-managing the type of information that agencies are 
     allowed to communicate to all of us when taking actions to 
     protect the public, our economy, and the environment. An open 
     government that prioritizes democratic public participation 
     requires agencies to be able to effectively convey 
     information to the public and make agency policy positions 
     clear to the public. This bill will make our government less 
     open and less democratic and should therefore be rejected.
       H.R. 1004 will significantly inhibit federal agencies' 
     ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and 
     transparent way regarding its work on important science-based 
     rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public. As a 
     result, the bill will lead to

[[Page 3376]]

     decreased public awareness and participation in the 
     rulemaking process in direct contradiction of the 
     Administrative Procedure Act and agencies' authorizing 
     statutes, which specifically provide for broad stakeholder 
     engagement.
       Substantial ambiguities in the bill threaten to create 
     uncertainty and confusion among agencies about what public 
     communications are permissible, and thus risks discouraging 
     them from keeping the public apprised of the important work 
     that they do on its behalf. In an era when agencies should be 
     increasingly embracing innovative 21st century communications 
     technologies needed to reach the public, including social 
     media, H.R. 1004 sends exactly the wrong message.
       The legislation strictly prohibits agencies from issuing 
     ``public communications'' that ``emphasize the importance'' 
     of a particular agency action unless the communication has 
     the ``clear purpose of informing the public of the substance 
     or status'' of the particular action. The legislation applies 
     to a wide swath of regulatory actions including rulemakings, 
     guidance, policy statements, directives and adjudications.
       While H.R. 1004 assumes that the distinction between 
     informing the public of an agency action and emphasizing the 
     importance of that action is self-evident, in practice the 
     distinction is anything but clear. As a result, agencies are 
     likely to avoid any public communications that risk running 
     afoul of this ambiguous prohibition, no matter how 
     informative the communication might be for the public.
       For example, various executive orders and statutes compel 
     agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis on their pending 
     rulemakings, and thus to determine whether the rule's 
     benefits outweigh its costs. As currently written, the 
     Regulatory Integrity Act could potentially prohibit an agency 
     from communicating the results of such an analysis when it 
     concludes that a particular rule generates net benefits. 
     After all, that conclusion is tantamount to declaring that 
     the rule makes society better off on balance. Instead, the 
     agency would likely be forced to simply share the basic 
     information that they had conducted a cost-benefit analysis 
     of the regulation without being able to share the further 
     crucial information that the regulation's benefits exceeded 
     the costs. Given that many of the bill's sponsors 
     enthusiastically endorse the expanded use of cost-benefit 
     analysis in the rulemaking process, these kinds of arbitrary 
     prohibitions on communications concerning cost-benefit 
     analysis seem especially peculiar.
       Agencies would encounter this problematic scenario when 
     deciding to share vital information, such as:
       How many lives would be saved by a regulation;
       How much property damage would be averted;
       How much money consumers would save; and
       Any of the other myriad public benefits that regulations 
     are designed to provide.
       The stark absence of any clear bright-lines in the 
     legislation delineating what is and what is not prohibited 
     public communications is sure to have a chilling effect on 
     agencies, with the predictable result that agencies will be 
     less willing to share crucial information with the public and 
     that the public will be less informed about government 
     activities.
       H.R. 1004 also will severely impede, rather than enable, 
     agency use of new communication technologies, most notably 
     social media platforms, to reach the public. Regulatory 
     experts and scholars agree that agencies should be using 
     social media forums and platforms.
       Agencies will find it difficult, if not impossible, to 
     communicate with the public through social media under H.R. 
     1004 since the bill prevents any usage of social media that 
     both conveys information about a regulatory action but also 
     promotes the importance of that action.
       For example, the U.S. Department of Interior operates a 
     Twitter and Instagram account that is very popular with the 
     public because it regularly features photos of beautiful 
     landscapes and wildlife from national parks across the United 
     States. Under the Regulatory Integrity Act, the Department 
     might be prohibited from posting such photos on Twitter and 
     Instagram because they are not solely informational in nature 
     and could be interpreted as promoting the importance of the 
     department's work in environmental and wildlife preservation.
       Enactment of H.R. 1004 will lead to less transparency in 
     the government, make it more difficult for agencies to use 
     new communication technologies popular with the public, and 
     generally chill agency communications with the public on 
     important matters due to the lack of any bright-line 
     standards for agencies to follow.
       We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1004, the Regulatory 
     Integrity Act.
           Sincerely,

                                              Robert Weissman,

                                                        President,
     Public Citizen Chair.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.
     Re Oppose H.R. 998, 1004, & 1009--Assaults on Environmental 
         Safeguards in the Guise of ``Regulatory Reform.''
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, 
     the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) works to turn 
     environmental values into national, state, and local 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, H.R. 
     1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act, and H.R. 1009, the OIRA 
     Insight, Reform, And Accountability Act. LCV joins our 
     partners in the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an 
     alliance of consumer, public health, labor, good government, 
     environmental, and scientific groups--in strongly opposing 
     this trio of extreme bills that have far-reaching and 
     damaging consequences for vital public health and 
     environmental safeguards.
       H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, would jeopardize critical 
     environmental safeguards that have been in place for decades 
     and would make it extremely difficult to develop new 
     standards in response to threats to public health and the 
     environment. This legislation creates a regulatory review 
     commission that would disregard the public benefits of 
     environmental safeguards and only consider the costs to 
     industries. By creating a misguided ``cut-go'' system for 
     safeguards, this bill would result in key public health 
     protections being eliminated.
       H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act, would 
     significantly hinder communications between federal agencies 
     and the public and would discourage agencies from using 
     social media platforms. This legislation would reduce 
     government transparency and would leave the public less 
     informed about government activities. The vague guidelines 
     about what public communications are allowed would result in 
     agencies being less willing to share key information with the 
     public.
       H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, And Accountability 
     Act, would endanger clean air and clean water protections by 
     opening them up to more litigation. The bill would 
     effectively rewrite dozens of laws in which Congress mandated 
     that agencies prioritize public health, safety and the 
     preservation of clean air and water over concerns about 
     industry profits.
       LCV urges you to REJECT H.R. 998, 1004, & 1009 and will 
     strongly consider including votes on these bills in the 2017 
     Scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____

       Good Morning Everyone: I am writing to express the 
     opposition of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) to 
     the three anti regulation bills that will be voted on on the 
     House floor this week. The Searching for and Cutting 
     Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017 
     (SCRUB Act); The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017; and the 
     OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act all impede the 
     ability of federal agencies to appropriately protect the 
     health, safety and well-being of the American public. As a 
     result, we urge your boss to vote NO on all three bills. See 
     below and attached for additional information on each bill. 
     Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

                                                 Sarah Rooney,

                                   Director of Regulatory Affairs,
                                 American Association for Justice.

                        H.R. 998, The SCRUB Act

       The SCRUB Act would establish a new regulatory review 
     commission charged with identifying duplicative and/or 
     redundant regulations to repeal. In addition, the bill 
     provides for a blanket percentage reduction in the cumulative 
     regulatory cost to industry without adequately considering 
     the benefits bestowed upon the public by these same 
     regulations. Under the severe SCRUB Act regulatory cost 
     considerations, targeted regulations could be repealed even 
     when the benefits of these rules are significant, appreciated 
     by the public, and far outweigh the costs.
       The SCRUB Act also contains entirely ineffective cut-go 
     provisions. Under the bill's cut-go provisions, an agency 
     would be required to remove an existing regulation of equal 
     or greater cost from its cut-go list before it can issue a 
     new regulation. As a result of these provisions, agencies 
     will be unable to respond to any emerging hazard with any new 
     public regulatory protections or guidance.

            H.R. 1004, The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017

       The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 significantly limits 
     the types of communications federal agencies can have with 
     the public regarding pending regulatory actions and prohibits 
     agencies from soliciting support for its regulatory actions. 
     These inappropriately restrictive provisions have two goals: 
     stymieing important public protections and preventing the 
     public from knowing about the positive impact pending 
     regulations may provide.

[[Page 3377]]



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

       Lastly, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act 
     creates yet another duplicative and unnecessary commission to 
     provide for the repeal of regulations, while also providing 
     for numerous additional hurdles in the regulatory review 
     process. It would codify the numerous burdensome regulatory 
     review requirements and make them subject to judicial review 
     which would provide for extensive challenge and delay of 
     important protections. More concerning, this bill would 
     severely damage the impact of dozens of Congressionally 
     passed public interest laws that require agencies to 
     prioritize public health and safety and protecting the 
     environment and instead focus on cost to industry. It also 
     would make federal agency science much more vulnerable to 
     judicial review. Lastly, the bill would effectively undermine 
     Congressionally chartered independent agencies by putting 
     them under the influence of the Office of the President.

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful 
presentation and thank the Chair for his indulgence.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I will make my statement brief. As you 
know, I believe in a little bit of brevity around here. Let me suggest 
that we have talked at length on the content of the bill and the intent 
of the bill. Let me suggest that my colleague may have used the wrong 
example or analogy because we all know, where there is one mosquito, 
there is more. Where there is one, there is more. At this point in 
time, this bill says we are going to take care of his mosquitoes. With 
all due respect, I ask my colleagues to support the bill, as I believe 
it puts the transparency required in rulemaking that will require 
agencies to disclose they are asking for comments and who is making the 
comment. It is one more step in getting the government accountable to 
the people rather than accountable to itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1004

       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 ``Regulatory Integrity Act of 
     2017''.

     SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO PENDING 
                   REGULATORY ACTIONS.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 306 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory 
       action

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency regulatory action.--The term `agency 
     regulatory action' means guidance, policy statement, 
     directive, rule making, or adjudication issued by an 
     Executive agency.
       ``(2) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication'--
       ``(A) means any method (including written, oral, or 
     electronic) of disseminating information to the public, 
     including an agency statement (written or verbal), blog, 
     video, audio recording, or other social media message; and
       ``(B) does not include a notice published in the Federal 
     Register pursuant to section 553 or any requirement to 
     publish pursuant to this section.
       ``(3) Rule making.--The term `rule making' has the meaning 
     given that term under section 551.
       ``(b) Information To Be Posted Online.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The head of each Executive agency shall 
     make publicly available in a searchable format in a prominent 
     location either on the website of the Executive agency or in 
     the rule making docket on Regulations.gov the following 
     information:
       ``(A) Pending agency regulatory action.--A list of each 
     pending agency regulatory action and with regard to each such 
     action--
       ``(i) the date on which the Executive agency first began to 
     develop or consider the agency regulatory action;
       ``(ii) the status of the agency regulatory action;
       ``(iii) an estimate of the date of upon which the agency 
     regulatory action will be final and in effect; and
       ``(iv) a brief description of the agency regulatory action.
       ``(B) Public communication.--For each pending agency 
     regulatory action, a list of each public communication about 
     the pending agency regulatory action issued by the Executive 
     agency and with regard to each such communication--
       ``(i) the date of the communication;
       ``(ii) the intended audience of the communication;
       ``(iii) the method of communication; and
       ``(iv) a copy of the original communication.
       ``(2) Period.--The head of each Executive agency shall 
     publish the information required under paragraph (1)(A) not 
     later than 24 hours after a public communication relating to 
     a pending agency regulatory action is issued and shall 
     maintain the public availability of such information not less 
     than 5 years after the date on which the pending agency 
     regulatory action is finalized.
       ``(c) Requirements for Public Communications.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any public communication issued by an 
     Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory 
     action--
       ``(A) shall specify whether the Executive agency is 
     considering alternatives;
       ``(B) shall specify whether the Executive agency is 
     accepting or will be accepting comments; and
       ``(C) shall expressly disclose that the Executive agency is 
     the source of the information to the intended recipients.
       ``(2) Restriction.--Any public communication issued by an 
     Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory 
     action, other than an impartial communication that requests 
     comment on or provides information regarding the pending 
     agency regulatory action, may not--
       ``(A) directly advocate, in support of or against the 
     pending agency regulatory action, for the submission of 
     information to form part of the record of review for the 
     pending agency regulatory action;
       ``(B) appeal to the public, or solicit a third party, to 
     undertake advocacy in support of or against the pending 
     agency regulatory action; or
       ``(C) be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States unless otherwise authorized 
     by law.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than January 15 of each year, 
     the head of an Executive agency that communicated about a 
     pending agency regulatory action during the previous fiscal 
     year shall submit to each committee of Congress with 
     jurisdiction over the activities of the Executive agency a 
     report indicating--
       ``(A) the number pending agency regulatory actions the 
     Executive agency issued public communications about during 
     that fiscal year;
       ``(B) the average number of public communications issued by 
     the Executive agency for each pending agency regulatory 
     action during that fiscal year;
       ``(C) the 5 pending agency regulatory actions with the 
     highest number of public communications issued by the 
     Executive agency in that fiscal year; and
       ``(D) a copy of each public communication for the pending 
     agency regulatory actions identified in subparagraph (C).
       ``(2) Availability of reports.--The head of an Executive 
     agency that is required to submit a report under paragraph 
     (1) shall make the report publicly available in a searchable 
     format in a prominent location on the website of the 
     Executive agency.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 306 the 
     following new item:
``307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory action.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part A of House Report 115-21. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, 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.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-21.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(2) Propaganda; publicity; advocacy.--The terms 
     `propaganda', `publicity', and `advocacy' mean information, 
     statements, or claims (or using such information, statement, 
     or claim, as applicable) that--
       ``(A) are not widely accepted in the scientific community; 
     or
       ``(B) are beliefs or assertions that are unsupported by 
     science or empirical data.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentlewoman from

[[Page 3378]]

Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair and the managers of the bill, in this 
instance Mr. Raskin and his collaborator, the Republican manager as 
well. I thank them for their very thoughtful discussion. I also want to 
indicate that this regulation does have a perspective of excessiveness 
on a matter that can be confined to instructions to the agencies that 
have the responsibility of implementing the laws that we pass here in 
the United States Congress.
  My amendment improves the present underlying bill by making clear 
that communication of information statements or claims that are 
generally accepted by the scientific community or supported by 
empirical data is not restricted by this bill.
  H.R. 1004 directs each Federal agency to make information regarding 
their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a 
prominent website. That information would have to include the date a 
regulation was considered, its current status, an estimate of when the 
regulation will be final, and a brief description of the regulation. In 
addition, agencies will be required to track the details of all public 
communications about pending regulatory actions.
  But it further provides that:
  ``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers 
to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial 
communication that requests comment on or provides information 
regarding the pending agency regulatory action,'' among other things, 
``may not--be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda 
purposes within the United States. . . .''
  I want to make sure that if an agency is telling the truth, then that 
agency is not going to be charged, as was said by Mr. Raskin, using a 
sledgehammer, that they can't make those communications. Take, for 
example, someone claiming that global warming is a hoax, but, if you 
read the facts, you will find out that a landmark 2013 study assessed 
4,000 peer-reviewed papers by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an 
opinion on the cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the 
authors attributed climate change to manmade causes. That may be a 
simple statement made by an agency based on science and empirical 
study. That should not be prohibited.
  The Jackson Lee amendment will protect Federal agency employees who 
might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, 
wrongfully terminated or mistreated, or the whole regulation process 
imploded for statements made even though the statement is externally 
valid, logical, rooted in fact, or supported by empirical data, 
although contrary to an administration's political agenda. I want this 
to be straight up. I want these agency representatives to do what is 
right, so I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules 
Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings 
for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee 
Amendment to H.R. 1004.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment improves H.R. 1004 by making clear that 
Communication of information, statements or claims that are generally 
accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is 
not restricted by the bill.
  H.R. 1004 directs each federal agency to make information regarding 
their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a 
prominent website.
  That information would have to include the date a regulation was 
considered, its current status, an estimate of when the regulation 
would be final, and a brief description of the regulation.
  In addition, agencies would be required to track the details of all 
public communications about pending regulatory actions.
  H.R. 1004 further provides that ``any public communication issued by 
an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, 
other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or 
provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action, 
among other things, may not ``be directly or indirectly used for 
publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless 
otherwise authorized by law.''
  Thus, in addition to requiring each federal agency to make 
information regarding regulatory action publicly available and 
accessible online, H.R. 1004 places restrictions on the type and 
quality of communications agencies may make.
  This vague phrase--``publicity or propaganda purposes''--creates 
substantial uncertainty and confusion as to what public communications 
are permissible, and risks discouraging agencies from keeping the 
public apprised of the important work they do on its behalf.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment will protect federal agency employees who 
might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, 
wrongfully terminated, or mistreated for statements made even though 
the statement is externally valid, logical, rooted in fact, or 
supported by empirical data, although contrary to an administration's 
political agenda.
  Under the Jackson Lee Amendment, for example, a communication that 
human activity is a major contributor to climate change is not 
propaganda because it is an assertion supported by an overwhelming 
consensus of the scientific community.
  On the other hand, a claim that there is `widespread voter fraud' in 
presidential elections could be considered propaganda, because there is 
no reliable and statistically significant empirical data to support 
such a claim.
  Federal agencies' ability to engage and inform the public in a 
meaningful and transparent way regarding their work on important 
science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public is a 
public good that we must nurture and protect.
  While propaganda may corrupt information or ideas by an interested 
party in a tendentious way in order to encourage particular attitudes 
and responses, information, supported by facts or empirical evidence, 
on the other hand, does not.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment safeguards the legitimacy and transparency 
of communications issued by federal agencies, ensuring that the 
information disseminated to the public is accurate and reliable.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve the bedrock principles of empirical 
research, scientific method, and free inquiry that are indispensable to 
free societies by voting for the Jackson Lee Amendment.

                   [From cnbc.com, February 17, 2017]

     Murray Energy CEO Claims Global Warming Is a Hoax, Says 4,000 
                         Scientists Tell Him So

                         (By Tom DiChristopher)

       Murray Energy Chairman and CEO Robert Murray on Friday 
     claimed global warming is a hoax and repeated a debunked 
     claim that the phenomenon cannot exist because the Earth's 
     surface is cooling.
       Murray appeared on CNBC's ``Squawk Box'' to discuss 
     Republicans' rollback of an Obama-era rule that would have 
     restricted coal mining near waterways. President Donald Trump 
     signed the measure on Thursday in front of Murray and a group 
     of Murray Energy workers.
       Murray Energy is the country's largest coal miner. Many of 
     its mines are in Appalachia, a region that would suffer some 
     of the biggest impacts of the rule. Murray also successfully 
     sued to delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which 
     would regulate planet-warming carbon emissions from power 
     plants.
       Asked about the economic analysis behind President Barack 
     Obama's energy regulations, Murray said, ``There's no 
     scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell 
     me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20 
     years.''
       It was not immediately clear who the 4,000 scientists 
     Murray referenced are.
       Asked for clarification, a spokesperson for Murray Energy 
     sent links to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, 
     which says ``human-caused climate change is not a global 
     crisis,'' and the Global Warming Petition Project, a list of 
     science degree holders who don't think humans cause climate 
     change.
       Murray's claim that there is no scientific analysis behind 
     climate change is not true.
       A landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers 
     by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the 
     cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors 
     attributed climate change to manmade causes.
       His second claim that Earth is cooling is also false.
       Temperatures were the warmest on record last year, 
     according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration. It was the third year in a row global average 
     temperatures set a record.

[[Page 3379]]

       ``The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 
     2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 
     19th century,' a change driven largely by increased carbon 
     dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,'' 
     NASA and NOAA said.
       Climate change skeptics sometimes point to cool land 
     temperatures to dispute global warming. Scientists have 
     repeatedly noted that water covers 70 percent of the Earth's 
     surface, so it is highly misleading to cast temperatures on 
     land as a representation of global-scale temperatures.
       Land also heats and cools more quickly than the ocean, The 
     Weather Channel noted while debunking a recent Breitbart News 
     article that was widely found to have cherry-picked data to 
     cast doubt on climate change.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Texas 
seeking to make this better, but I am going to have to oppose this 
amendment. It is confusing, unnecessary, and overly restrictive on 
agencies. This amendment would create a single definition of three 
different words: propaganda, publicity, and advocacy. Those are 
different words. Under this amendment, publicity, advocacy, and 
propaganda would mean making a statement not widely accepted by the 
scientific community. Are we going to create a test of two out of three 
dentists agree? It is going to be difficult to do. I mean, it could be 
anything. Is it propaganda for me to say I love my wife? I only know a 
couple of scientists, there is not going to be a broad, general 
consensus in the scientific community about that, but it is certainly 
not propaganda. It is a statement of my feeling.
  Publicity and propaganda and advocacy are different words. They don't 
mean the same thing, and they certainly don't have the definition my 
friend from Texas is suggesting. Check out the dictionary. You can do 
it on your smartphone. These definitions that are proposed in this 
amendment are unworkable. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that my good friend 
from Texas loves his wife. I would also suggest to him that there might 
be a number of individuals who are experts that would be able to 
confirm that, certainly those who are around him, and they might be 
able to say that that is not propaganda or publicity, and, therefore, 
his statement stands.
  But when you are talking about thousands upon thousands of executive 
agency staff, servants of the United States Government wanting to do 
what is right, and you come down with this massive, oppressive document 
that says here is what you have to do, but don't do propaganda and 
don't do publicity, there should be a determination or a standard that 
says if it is based in fact, you have no problem, that is information 
that you can disseminate in order to edify those who may be wanting to 
comment by edifying the particular regulatory scheme or structure that 
you are putting forward for comment.
  Why should my friends on the other side be afraid of good, strong 
information to make the input valuable so that if I am dealing with a 
clean air regulation that I am able to hear from those who are for and 
against, but I can provide documentation, scientific documentation 
about the quality of air pollution, why this regulatory scheme is 
appropriate. I ask my colleagues, again, to support the Jackson Lee 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I come back to the purpose of this 
bill: we want our regulatory agencies to be neutral. They propose a 
rule, they have done the research, and they have done the science. They 
wouldn't be proposing it if they didn't believe that it needed to be 
done. Where they crossed the line is using taxpayer money to go out and 
promote and advocate for it. The idea behind public comments, the whole 
thought behind public input is to get a diversity of ideas, but, if the 
solicitations seeking that comment are biased, or if the agency is 
advocating it, it potentially suppresses the other side. We want to get 
both sides of the matter.
  Let's look at the actual definition of propaganda. I googled it while 
Ms. Jackson Lee was just speaking. Propaganda is information, 
especially of a biased or misleading nature used to promote a 
particular cause or point of view. Advocacy is another one that has a 
definition. It is public statements for or a recommendation of a 
particular cause or policy. So those definitions basically say you are 
pushing a point of view. We don't want to limit those.
  The definition and the purpose behind this legislation is to make our 
agencies fair about seeking comment and fair about listening to those 
comments. We don't want the agencies going into this with preconceived 
notions and advocating it. We want the public comment to work the way 
the public comment is supposed to work. The scientific community, 
whether they are for it or against it, can weigh in in those public 
comments, and the public and the agency will know what their consensus 
is based on the fair comments fairly solicited. So again, I urge 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. How much time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining. The 
gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that what 
we are suggesting is that propaganda can be confusing. I want truth and 
honesty, and I want our agencies to be able to reach out and to help 
the American people. Therefore, my amendment says that if by chance 
they say something but it has facts or empirical evidence, it is not 
propaganda, it is not publicity, they can go forward and protect our 
water, they can protect our health, they can protect our air. Why are 
we hiding on this floor?
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. It only 
makes this bill more refined as to how we can help the American people 
pass a regulatory scheme that enhances local communities and cities. 
That is why we need the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the purpose of the 
underlying legislation here is to make sure we have a fair process and 
the Federal Government isn't pushing a point of view, it is listening 
to all sides. This amendment takes that away. For that reason, I urge 
opposition.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Farenthold

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in part A of House Report 115-21.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer), 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 4, line 24, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 5, line 2, strike the period at the end and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 5, after line 2, insert the following new clause:
       ``(v) if applicable, a list of agency regulatory actions 
     issued by the Executive agency, or any other Executive 
     agency, that duplicate or overlap with the agency regulatory 
     action.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page 3380]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple transparency measure 
that adds a disclosure requirement under the underlying bill. 
Understanding which regulations are duplicative or overlapping allows 
the public to be better informed as they participate in the rulemaking 
process. We want to know what is going on as members of the public. Too 
many times agencies develop regulations without consideration or 
coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
or, in some cases, even the public. They issue proposed rules that are 
unnecessary, duplicative, or overcomplicated.
  This simple amendment helps draw the public's attention to potential 
areas of concern while the rule is still in the proposed phase of 
rulemaking. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my opposition to this 
amendment because it is perfectly duplicative, and it does nothing to 
cure the very serious deficiencies in the underlying bill. Executive 
Order 13563, which was issued by President Obama, requires each agency 
to ``periodically review existing significant regulations to determine 
whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, 
or repealed, so as to make the agency's regulatory program more 
effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''
  Because there is little doubt that this executive order covers the 
review and elimination of duplicative and overlapping regulatory 
actions, there is no need for the additional reporting requirements 
that this amendment would redundantly impose. More importantly, this 
amendment simply fails to address the profound flaws in the underlying 
bill. It fails to provide the bright lines for what an agency can 
communicate to the public safely within the stringent new guidelines. 
It fails to eliminate the unnecessarily burdensome and onerous 
requirements in the bill that seem to have no purpose but to reduce the 
amount of information agencies would be able to release to the public 
and invite from the public.

                              {time}  1000

  The amendment fails to eliminate the prohibition against agencies 
making public communications that directly advocate for or oppose the 
submission of public comments or expert analysis of a pending rule. The 
amendment fails to remove the serious impediments this bill places in 
the way of agency use of social media platforms. Most importantly, the 
amendment does nothing to cure the serious chilling effect that the 
bill would have on agency communications and the negative effects that 
this imposition would have on the ability of agencies to educate 
millions of Americans about the costs and benefits of a particular 
regulation and to invite their input into the rulemaking process.
  Because the amendment does nothing to improve the flaws of this bill 
and is duplicative of work that agencies are already required to do, I 
urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague across the aisle 
actually makes the case for me. The executive branch already requires 
that this work be done by the agencies.
  Leaving behind the constitutional authority of this body to direct 
that happen in the nature of executive orders that can be changed by 
the next executive, this actually codifies a good part of the executive 
order that is already in place, so the agencies wouldn't have to do any 
work.
  What this does add, however, to that executive order and why it is so 
important is it adds a transparency requirement. An agency is required 
to look to see what regulations are out there that may be duplicative 
under the executive order. This requires them to tell us about it. Why 
would they want to hide from the American people that they are creating 
a duplicative regulation?
  This is a simple transparency amendment that improves the quality of 
the underlying bill, improves the amount of information accessible to 
the public, and holds executive branch agencies accountable to make 
sure they are not putting unnecessary and duplicative burdens on the 
American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise only to note the remarkable irony of 
the gentleman making an argument for the reduction of duplicative 
regulations by adding another duplicative regulation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, we are simply codifying an executive 
order here, as the gentleman pointed out, but we are adding one more 
thing. We are adding transparency to it so the American people know 
what these alphabet soups of government agencies are up to and give us, 
as watchdogs in Congress, or private organizations or a member of the 
public with internet access the ability to see how the CFR is expanding 
and expanding with more and more duplicative Federal rules.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, this redundant and duplicative and, again, 
chilling amendment will only add more red tape, divert the time of 
agency officials to produce more paperwork that is unnecessary, and 
point us right back to the central flaw of the legislation.
  My distinguished opponents have mobilized all of one case to 
demonstrate the necessity of this legislation, and it was a case which 
was properly resolved by the GAO, and everybody agrees to it. So I 
understand the urge to get up and say we need more legislation to do 
what we have already been able to accomplish under existing law, I 
understand that everybody wants to make a point about the righteousness 
of legislative change, but sometimes we just don't need another law. 
The law works as it was. We don't need another law.
  And again, I am just impressed by the irony of saying we need another 
law to eliminate excessive and redundant regulation when the current 
law already does it. It is almost like a caricature of what we do here 
in Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple.
  It would require an executive agency to report any new rule or 
regulatory action that would duplicate or otherwise overlap with 
existing agency rules and regulations.
  So much of government's excess is created by unelected officials who 
wield enormous influence over our everyday lives.
  Last year, Federal agencies issued 18 rules and regulations for every 
one law that passed Congress.
  That is a grand total of 3,853 regulations in 2016 alone. In 2015, 
Federal regulations cost the American economy nearly $1.9 trillion --T, 
trillion dollars--in lost growth and productivity.
  Think about that for a second. A $1.9 trillion tax, a government 
burden on the American people. That means lost jobs, stagnant wages, 
and decreasing benefits for workers.
  When the House passed the REINS Act in January, I offered an 
amendment to require at least 1 rule be overturned for every new rule 
finalized by the executive branch.
  President Trump recently took that one step further by issuing an 
executive order which required at least 2 rules be overturned for every 
new rule.
  My amendment builds on those initiatives by requiring any agency 
issuing a duplicative regulation to indicate as much when making the 
online disclosure required by the underlying bill.
  The truth is, the federal government is all too often a fountain of 
unnecessary regulations.
  And while some may debate the merits of any given regulation, few 
would agree the federal government should issue identical iterations of 
the same regulation multiple times over.
  Mr. Speaker, it is past time we stop bureaucratic abuse and shift the 
balance of power from government back to the people, where it belongs.
  That can start today by passing the Regulatory Integrity Act and 
putting our government on a path to reduce the amount of red tape that 
our businesses and the American people deal with every day.

[[Page 3381]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan for his 
hard work on this commonsense legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RASKIN. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 115-21.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 8, after line 12, insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Applicability.--Section 307 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), does not apply to any 
     communication that is protected under the First Amendment to 
     the Constitution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 156, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, with all good intentions of the 
underlying bill, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, which has a very 
distinguished name, I am really concerned, and my colleague should be 
concerned, of the chilling effect of this particular legislation. Let 
me tell you what the problem is.
  My good friend from Texas Mr. Farenthold, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, 
and Professor Raskin will not be bending over the shoulder of some 
hardworking public servant for the Federal Government trying to 
interpret what this new law means. Can I speak? Can I send information 
out? What a chilling effect. What a First Amendment violation this 
legislation might entail.
  Take, for example, Chairman Pai of the FCC. He decided to publish the 
full text of proposals and regulations that the public would otherwise 
never see until after they had been finalized and approved. Suppose he 
was then charged with a violation of this bill? Chilling effect, 
undermining the public's ability to even understand what a very 
important agency such as the FCC is doing.
  My amendment simply states that nothing in this bill shall be 
interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For those of us who 
love the Constitution, that is the First Amendment, and it is a simple, 
simple statement. Your freedom of speech is protected because it 
enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, makes 
decisions, and communicates those decisions to the government.
  Let me recite a 1927 case from Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. 
California. There is a joy in reading it because he wrote and said: 
``Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means 
indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''
  The Framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice Brandeis: 
``that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for 
its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and 
imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds 
hate.''
  The question is: Some worker who is responsible for this, what will 
they think?
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that 
indicates the First Amendment will not be chilled.
  Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules 
Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings 
for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain this Jackson Lee 
Amendment to H.R. 1004.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment is simple and straightforward.
  It simply states that ``nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to 
prohibit any communication that is protected under the First Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.''
  The amendment is necessary because not only does H.R. 1004 direct 
that certain information be made publicly available by agencies 
regarding their regulatory actions, the legislation also imposes 
restrictions on the type and quality of communications that can be made 
by agencies and agency personnel.
  Mr. Chair, it is useful to explain briefly why the First Amendment's 
protection of speech is central to the effective functioning of the 
American political system.
  Freedom of speech and a vibrant and robust democracy are inextricably 
intertwined.
  Freedom of speech enables people to obtain information from a 
diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions 
to the government.
  The First Amendment also provides American people with a 
``marketplace of ideas.''
  Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth, 
freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions.
  In Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that 
``freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means 
indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''
  Free speech facilitates democratic governance because it is only 
through talking that we encourage consensus and form a collective will.
  Over the long run, free speech improves our public decision-making 
because just as we Americans generally believe in free markets in 
economic matters, we also generally believe in free markets when it 
comes to ideas, and this includes governmental affairs.
  Freedom of speech strengthens public confidence in the American 
governmental system of checks and balances.
  Speech is thus a means of empowering people, through which they 
learn, grow, and share; correct errors; and remedy violations of the 
public trust.
  Mr. Chair, the framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice 
Brandeis again in Whitney v. California:

       that order cannot be secured merely through fear of 
     punishment for its infraction;
       that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and 
     imagination;
       that fear breeds repression;
       that repression breeds hate;
       that hate menaces stable government[.]

  Free societies like the United States accept that openness fosters 
resiliency and that free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.
  Not only does freedom of speech serve the ends of democracy, it is 
also an indelible part of human personality and human dignity.
  In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 case Procunier 
v. Martinez:

       The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity 
     but also those of the human spirit--a spirit that demands 
     self-expression.

  Freedom of speech is intimately connected to the human desire to 
think, imagine, create, wonder, inquire, and believe.
  While freedom of speech is not unlimited, the American tradition is 
to view such limits with caution and skepticism and to embrace freedom 
of speech as a transcendent constitutional value.
  In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Justice Douglas reminded 
us that:

     effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people 
     are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored 
     flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously 
     subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination.

  In other words, Mr. Chair, freedom of speech is fundamental to the 
American identity and psyche.
  And that is why I have proposed the Jackson Lee Amendment to ensure 
that nothing in H.R. 1004 shall be interpreted to prohibit any 
communication that is protected under the precious First Amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary and

[[Page 3382]]

confusing. As I am sure my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) 
knows, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
  The First Amendment applies to everybody in this country. We couldn't 
write a law that infringes upon the First Amendment and have it 
withstand scrutiny by the Supreme Court or under the Constitution, and 
I certainly wouldn't support a law that did this.
  The underlying legislation is designed to stop public agencies from 
using your taxpayer dollars and my taxpayer dollars for promoting one 
side of an issue. It is not designed to chill any Federal employees of 
First Amendment rights.
  In fact, the Supreme Court, in 1994, in Waters v. Churchill, held 
that public employees do have a right to free speech. We are not going 
to be leaning over people's necks seeing what they are putting on their 
personal Twitter accounts, but we are going to say that, if you are a 
government agency spending taxpayer dollars to promote a point of view 
on something before your agency, that is a no-no. That is what this 
underlying legislation does.
  Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment is simply unnecessary because we can't 
suppress the First Amendment rights even if we want to. And we do not--
I say do not--ever want to violate the Constitution and interfere with 
people's First Amendment rights. And, listen, I agree with the 
underlying intent of my colleague's amendment. Simply, we can't do it.
  Unfortunately, this amendment is not only unnecessary, it could be 
harmful. If we say First Amendment protections apply in this law, are 
we going to have to go out and in every law we pass, put in something 
that says the First Amendment applies? Come on. We already know the 
First Amendment applies because the Constitution is the supreme law of 
the land.
  So it creates unnecessary confusion that could ultimately harm 
people's First Amendment rights. Can you see the lawsuits? Well, 
Congress didn't say in there it protected my First Amendment right. So 
we would have to go and rewrite every law on the books.
  The Constitution is there and it works. It is an unnecessary 
amendment. So I hope my clarification that the First Amendment applies 
assuages the concerns of the gentlewoman from Texas and she withdraws 
the amendment. If she doesn't, however, I am going to have to oppose it 
as unnecessary and potentially confusing to the entire body of law of 
this country.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me say this.
  Mr. Chair, first of all, before I yield to the gentleman from the 
great State of Maryland, the reason why we need my amendment is because 
this deals with speech. This regulatory bill deals with speech, what 
you can say and what you cannot say.
  So this is not a reflection that we need this in every legislative 
initiative. I would love for it to be there. But this is a bill that 
deals with what our agencies can say. And if the Chairman of the FCC 
put out all of these proposals specifically so that the public could 
see, just think if this bill unclarified what the protection of the 
First Amendment reiterated, his speech would be chilled.
  I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, a regime of fear has descended on the Federal 
workforce, and I have got 88,000 Federal employees in my district.
  If they insist on this legislation--unnecessary, redundant, 
confusing, and chilling--at the very least, we must pass the 
gentlewoman's amendment to say that it does not trench on the First 
Amendment rights of our citizens who are simply exercising in a 
viewpoint-neutral, in a content-neutral way the determination of the 
agencies to solicit public input.
  You say you support on your side the input of the public. You say you 
support the intent of the amendment. Let's accept the amendment, and 
let's all embrace the First Amendment together.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would just like to point out that Commissioner 
Pai's release of that information would not be prohibited under this 
bill. It is not advocacy. It is releasing facts. So it would not be 
prohibited.
  Again, the First Amendment already applies to every law that we make 
in this body and every law we have made. The Constitution trumps what 
we do here.
  So, with that, I continue to argue that this amendment is unnecessary 
and potentially confusing, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, Mr. Chair, can the Chair tell us the time 
remaining.
  The ACTING CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me indicate that the gentleman just 
argued my point. Clarity is what we need. My amendment provides 
clarity.
  Again, what does this bill do? This bill tells Federal employees 
about their speech: what level of speech, containing speech, how much 
speech, what they can say, what is propaganda, what is publicity. 
Therefore, I think it is important to avoid the chilling effect on 
public servants who are doing the task on behalf of the American 
people.
  Being the American people's defendant, I believe that we should, in 
fact, have this language. In Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Douglas 
reminded us that an effective self-government cannot succeed unless the 
people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow 
of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique, 
rebuttal, and reexamination. That is the protection of the First 
Amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I think the utmost clarity is in the First 
Amendment. I am going to read it here.
  ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''

                              {time}  1015

  That applies to everything we do, every law we make. This amendment 
is unnecessary, and I urge opposition.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Let me reemphasize: Clarity in the First Amendment cannot be a bad 
thing. This bill kills speech. Let's clarify that that speech is 
protected by the First Amendment to not chill the hard work of our 
hardworking Federal employees trying to provide for the safety and 
security of the American people.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, at the risk of sounding repetitious, the 
First Amendment applies to all we do in this body. This amendment is 
unnecessary.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 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 part A of House Report 
115-

[[Page 3383]]

21 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Farenthold of Texas.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 234, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                               AYES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     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
     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
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     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
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     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
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     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
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Chu, Judy
     Gallego
     Hudson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     McGovern
     Nadler
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Taylor
     Wittman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1038

  Messrs. ABRAHAM, POSEY, THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida, ROTHFUS, 
LUETKEMEYER, and WESTERMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 122.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Farenthold

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263, 
noes 145, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--263

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)

[[Page 3384]]


     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kihuen
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--145

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bass
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brooks (AL)
     Comstock
     Fitzpatrick
     Hudson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Keating
     Marchant
     McGovern
     Nadler
     Poe (TX)
     Rice (NY)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rush
     Scott, David
     Taylor
     Waters, Maxine
     Wittman
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1043

  Mr. HIMES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 123.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 124]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     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
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     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
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     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, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     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
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Ellison
     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
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)

[[Page 3385]]


     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bass
     Hudson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Nadler
     Rush
     Taylor
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1050

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 
vote No. 124, on H.R. 1004, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' 
when I should have voted ``yes.''
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). There being no further 
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, 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. 
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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 156, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Jayapal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1004 to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendments:
       Page 6, line 13, after ``Executive agency'' insert the 
     following: ``or the President of the United States''.
       Page 6, line 17, after ``regulatory action,'' insert the 
     following: ``or that refers to a business in which the 
     President has an equity interest,''.
       Page 7, line 1, after ``regulatory action'' insert the 
     following: ``or business''.

  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this amendment restricts the President from 
making public statements to promote his own business interests in the 
same way that the bill restricts statements by agencies on pending 
rules. If we intend to hold agencies accountable for their statements, 
we should certainly be willing to hold the President of the United 
States to those same standards. Donald Trump's enormous web of business 
interests and conflicts of interest make it clear that it is necessary 
to explicitly expand this restriction to the President.
  It is deeply disturbing, Mr. Speaker, that the President has refused 
to release his tax returns or create a blind trust for the proceeds of 
his assets. Numerous U.S. Presidents have placed their financial 
holdings into a blind trust that is managed by a trustee without any 
input from the President. This allows for the President to minimize any 
conflicts of interest and any suggestion that the Presidency of the 
United States is being used for his own personal profits.
  This President, however, has avoided those calls for him to sell his 
assets or place them into a blind trust. Instead, documents obtained 
through public records requests show that President Trump has moved the 
assets over, just in name, to his son and a longtime employee, but that 
Trump himself, the President of the United States, is the sole 
beneficiary of all of those trusts.
  In other words, there is no wall erected between his businesses and 
his Presidency, and anyone who wants to buy influence can simply do so 
openly. His entire Presidency can be seen as a promotion of his 
business interests and be used by domestic and foreign governments to 
curry favor and produce benefit to his personal empire.
  Trump Tower in D.C. is one example of this. The building, which is 
leased to him by the Federal Government, stipulates in its lease that 
``any elected official of the Government of the United States'' may not 
derive any benefit from that agreement. At 12:01 p.m. on Inauguration 
Day, Trump was in violation of this clause. That lease should be 
terminated effective immediately.
  Just last week, the Kuwaiti Embassy held its annual event to 
celebrate the country's national day at the President's D.C. hotel. The 
event was initially scheduled to take place at the Four Seasons, and, 
in fact, a ``save the date'' went out with the Four Seasons location. 
But Kuwait canceled that reservation just a few days after the 
election, and moved the event to the President's hotel after that 
happened.
  These are not isolated instances. They constitute a pattern of 
conflicts of interest every time a foreign government holds a reception 
or rents a room at a Trump property, a problem so important to this 
country that it was put into the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution 
of the United States of America.
  The American people should also be deeply concerned about conflicts 
of interest at the President's Mar-a-Lago resort. On January 1, 2017, 
just 2 months after the election of Donald Trump, the exclusive resort 
doubled its membership initiation fee from $100,000 to $200,000. When 
Trump took Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe there, it created even 
more free publicity for the resort as several social media posts were 
made throughout the weekend.
  Conducting government affairs in public settings not only has serious 
national security concerns, but indicates that anyone who wants to be a 
member of the club will have access to the President of the United 
States, and the President will personally profit off of their 
membership.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to know what the entire 
web of conflicts of interest are, but we have yet to get this 
information because we have not received--we have yet to get any 
information from this President, his tax returns, or any of the 
documents that help us to ensure that he is complying with the 
Constitution of the United States of America, that document that he 
swore to uphold and protect, so that we can make sure that he is not 
using the highest office of this land to profit.

                              {time}  1100

  The American people have the right to demand that this President put 
their interests first rather than his own business interests.
  I urge all of my colleagues to pass this motion to recommitment and 
demand that we uphold our Constitution, protect this democracy and the 
duty of this President to work not for the business interests, but for 
we the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 3386]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, as a great supporter of transparency, 
this bill is designed to promote transparency in executive branch 
agencies.
  Unfortunately, I think the motion to recommit would actually be 
violative of the Constitution. The President and the executive branch 
agencies we are seeking to regulate under this law are creations of 
Congress administered by the executive branch.
  The Presidency is created by the Constitution, and it is my belief 
that it would be unconstitutional to pass this motion to recommit. For 
that reason alone, I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     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
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Crist
     Hudson
     Jordan
     Nadler
     Pelosi
     Rush
     Taylor
     Wittman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1107

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 109 through 113, 118, 119, 
122, 124, and 125, I was unable to cast my vote in person due to an 
unexpected illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 176, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               AYES--246

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham

[[Page 3387]]


     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
     Gutierrez
     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
     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
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     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
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     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
     Courtney
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Hudson
     Jordan
     Nadler
     Pelosi
     Rush
     Taylor
     Wittman

                              {time}  1114

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 114 through 117, 120, 121, 
123, and 126, I was unable to cast my vote in person due to an 
unexpected illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.''
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on Thursday, March 2, 2017. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 122, 
``Yea'' on rollcall No. 123, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 124, ``nay'' on 
rollcall No. 125 and ``Yea'' on rollcall 126.

                          ____________________