[House Report 114-729]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress   }                                      {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                      {      114-729

======================================================================



 
                    REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF 2016

                                _______
                                

 September 8, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Chaffetz, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5226]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 5226) 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, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     2
Section-by-Section...............................................     5
Explanation of Amendments........................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Roll Call Votes..................................................     5
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................     7
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................     7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     7
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................     7
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................     7
Earmark Identification...........................................     7
Committee Estimate...............................................     8
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Minority Views...................................................    12

                     Committee Statement and Views


                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act, seeks to provide 
transparency into the proposed rule process by requiring 
federal agencies to post, in a central location, all public 
comments the agency makes about a proposed rule during a 
proposed rule stage. The bill also prohibits agencies from 
actively soliciting support for a proposed rule during the 
phase that is meant to gather public input on possible 
regulatory action. Under H.R. 5226, federal agencies are 
required to tell the public whether they are considering 
alternatives or soliciting feedback during the proposed rule 
stage and agencies are prohibited from making statements that 
serve as self-aggrandizement, such as communications tending to 
emphasize the importance of the agency, its officials, or the 
activity in question.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was enacted in 1946 
to ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide 
expertise, opinions, and other comments.\1\ As then-Chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick McCarran explained, the 
APA ``is a bill of rights for . . . Americans whose affairs are 
controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of 
the Federal Government. It is designed to provide guaranties of 
due process in administrative procedure.''\2\ Former Attorney 
General Tom C. Clark further expounded upon the spirit of the 
unanimously-passed\3\ APA in stating that the basic purposes of 
the bill is to ``require agencies to keep the public currently 
informed of their organization, procedures and rules,'' and to 
``provide for public participation in the rule making 
process.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 USC Sec. 551 et seq. (1946).
    \2\79 Cong. Rec. 2148-2167 (1946) (statement of Sen. McCarran).
    \3\See S. Doc. 248, Administrative Procedure Act Legislative 
History, Sen. Doc. 248, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946).
    \4\Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 
(1947), https://archive.org/details/
AttorneyGeneralsManualOnTheAdministrativeProcedureActOf1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, given the broad language of the APA and the 
massive growth of federal agency rulemaking,\5\ the rulemaking 
process is often perceived as one that is dominated by interest 
groups and is largely opaque to the public at large.\6\ Such a 
shift away from the public-first spirit of the APA has meant 
that most of the agency deliberations are carried out without a 
record or public review.\7\ As Supreme Court Justice Elena 
Kagan noted during her academic career, ``[t]he APA contains no 
prohibitions on ex parte contacts between agency personnel and 
outside persons in notice-and-comment rulemaking.''\8\ H.R. 
5226 addresses this concern by requiring agencies to increase 
transparency measures regarding communications to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\The Administrative State: An Examination of Federal Rulemaking: 
Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental 
Affairs, 114th Cong. 2 (2016) (written statement of Jonathan Turley, 
Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University 
Law School) (hereinafter Administrative State). Currently there are 
approximately 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies, 
and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies. Id.
    \6\See, e.g., Stuart M. Benjamin, EVALUATING E-RULEMAKING: PUBLIC 
PARTICIPATION AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, 55 Duke L. J. 895 (2006); 
Cornelius M. Kerwin, RULEMAKING: HOW GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WRITE LAW AND 
MAKE POLICY 113, 189 (3d ed. 2003).
    \7\Administrative State.
    \8\Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 
2245, 2280 n.142 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The demand for legislation of this type to ensure 
transparency and public participation in the informal 
rulemaking process has, thus, been widespread and consistent 
over a period of many years. United States v. Texas is an 
alarming example of how agencies operate independently from the 
public in promulgating regulations that affect our society and 
economy in fundamental ways.\9\ Despite the APA's notice-and-
comment requirements being repeatedly enforced by the courts as 
a precondition for rules to have the force of law, the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) simply chose to issue a 
November 20, 2014 directive setting forth the provisions of the 
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent 
Residents (DAPA).\10\ In Texas there was no advance notice or 
comment--a violation found by the district court.\11\ When 
challenged over the circumvention of the APA-required notice-
and-comment requirements, the Administration ``simply declared 
that the enormous program affecting the status of millions of 
undocumented persons fell within an exception for `general 
statements of policy.'''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015); see 
also Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015).
    \10\See Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, Attorney General, to Leon 
Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship & Imm. Serv., Thomas A. 
Winkowski, Acting Director, U.S. Imm. & Customs Enforcement, R. Gil 
Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, on 
Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who 
Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain 
Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents 
(Nov. 20, 2014), www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf.
    \11\Texas, 86 F. Supp. 3d at 591.
    \12\Administrative State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the issues surrounding transparency and 
public participation in agency rulemaking demonstrated by 
Texas, agencies have further undermined the purpose and spirit 
of the notice and comment process by actively campaigning for 
support of their proposals.\13\ As an example, after issuing 
the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook 
a public campaign utilizing certain social media platforms to 
solicit support for what, at the time, was a proposed rule.\14\ 
During the public comment period, the EPA used social media 
platforms to communicate about the proposed rule and solicit 
support for their specific proposal.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\GAO defines self-aggrandizement as publicity of a nature 
tending to emphasize the importance of the agency or activity in 
question, noting that one of the prohibition's primary targets is 
communication with an obvious purpose of puffery. Letter from Susan A. 
Poling, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, to the Hon. 
James M. Inhofe, Chairman, S. Comm. on Env. & Public Works (Dec. 14, 
2015) (on file with author) (hereinafter GAO Letter).
    \14\GAO Letter.
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to concerns raised about possible misuse of 
federal funds, GAO issued a report that found that the EPA not 
only violated publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying 
provisions concerning the use of its FY2014 and FY2015 
appropriations, but additionally raised ``a question about 
self-aggrandizement because certain posts described what EPA 
declared as benefits . . . and attributed such benefits to the 
agency's new rule.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Specifically, GAO identified four troublesome social media 
campaigns run by the EPA with regard to WOTUS rulemaking: 
Thunderclap\17\, the #DitchtheMyth Campaign, the 
#CleanWaterRules Campaign, and EPA's Links to External 
Websites. Through each of these campaigns, the EPA ``appealed 
to the public to contact Congress in opposition to pending 
legislation in violation of the grassroots lobbying 
prohibition.''\18\ Of perhaps greater concern, through these 
campaigns the EPA condensed an immensely complicated rule in 
order to solicit support for their rule, leaving the public 
misinformed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Thunderclap is a ``crowdspeaking platform'' that allows a 
single message to be shared across multiple Facebook, Twitter, and 
Tumbler accounts at the same time. GAO Letter.
    \18\GAO Letter at 18.
    \19\See, e.g., GAO Letter at 20; Waters of the United States: 
Stakeholder Perspectives on the Impacts of EPA's Proposed Rule: Hearing 
Before the S. Comm. on Agric., Nutrition & Forestry, 114th Cong. (2016) 
(statement of the Hon. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney Gen., Arkansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through its study, GAO found multiple instances where the 
EPA violated both the spirit of the APA, as well as grassroots 
lobbying prohibitions, by engaging in self-aggrandizement 
without properly identifying themselves as the author. In 
finding that the Thunderclap campaign ``constituted covert 
propaganda,'' GAO specifically noted that the ``EPA created a 
Thunderclap message that did not identify EPA as the author,'' 
leaving the estimated 1.8 million individuals the message 
reached entirely unaware ``that the message was prepared and 
disseminated by EPA.''\20\ Further, in linking ``external 
websites belonging to environmental action groups to support 
statements made in [EPA's] blog, the EPA made ``clear appeals 
to the public to contact Congress at a time when legislation to 
prevent implementation of the WOTUS rule was pending.'' In 
doing so, GAO found that ``this association combined with the 
clear appeals actually contained in the . . . form prohibited 
conduct.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\GAO Letter at 12.
    \21\GAO Letter at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016 would help to remedy 
the perception that agency rulemaking is impervious by 
permanently prohibiting federal agencies from anonymously 
issuing statements for propaganda purposes. Specifically, H.R. 
5226 requires agencies to make available online information 
about public communications about pending regulatory 
actions.\22\ Further, H.R. 5226 would ensure true transparency 
in the rulemaking process and remedy the problems identified by 
GAO by requiring that agencies ``expressly disclose that the 
Executive agency is the source of the information to the 
intended recipients,'' and mandates that agencies ``may not . . 
. solicit support for or promote . . . pending agency 
regulatory action; or include statements of aggrandizement.'' 
Additionally, H.R. 5226 would further buoy public trust and 
involvement in the rulemaking process by creating a heightened-
standard of self-aggrandizement.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\H.R. 5226, 114th Cong. Sec. 307(a) (2016).
    \23\H.R. 5226, 114th Cong. Sec. 307(a)(2)(A)-(B) (2016) (defining 
aggrandizement as ``any communication emphasizing the importance of the 
Executive agency or agency regulatory action that does not have the 
clear purpose of informing the public of the substance or status of the 
Executive agency or agency regulatory action; or any communication that 
is puffery'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    H.R. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016, was 
introduced on May 13, 2016 by Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI) 
and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform. On May 17, 2016, the Committee ordered H.R. 5226 
favorably reported, without amendment, by a record vote of 22 
to 14.

                           Section-by-Section


Section 1. Short title

    Designates the short title of the bill as ``The Regulatory 
Integrity Act of 2016.''

Section 2. Publication of information relating to pending regulatory 
        actions

    Adds section 307 to chapter 3 of title 5 of the United 
States Code.
    Subsection (a) of section 307 sets definitions for agency 
regulatory action, aggrandizement, public communication, and 
rule making.
    Subsection (b) of section 307 requires agencies to make 
available online information about public communications about 
pending regulatory actions.
    Subsection (c) of section 307 sets requirements for public 
communications about pending regulatory actions by requiring 
agencies to specify if they are considering alternatives or 
accepting comments, and that the agency is the source of the 
communication, and prohibiting agencies from soliciting support 
for the pending regulatory action and making statements of 
aggrandizement.
    Subsection (d) of section 307 requires agencies to annually 
report about public communication activity about pending 
regulatory actions.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    No amendments to H.R. 5226 were offered during Full 
Committee consideration of the bill.

                        Committee Consideration

    On May 17, 2016, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 5226, by a vote of 22 
to 14, a quorum being present.

                            Roll Call Votes

    There was one recorded vote during consideration of H.R. 
5226:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill requires the publication of information relating to 
pending agency regulatory actions. This bill does not relate to 
employment or access to public services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals and objectives of the bill are to require the publication 
of information relating to pending agency regulatory actions.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not 
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the 
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to 
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has 
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included 
herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for this bill from the Director of 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, September 8, 2016.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5226, the 
Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5226--Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5226 would have no 
significant cost over the next five years. The bill could 
affect direct spending by agencies not funded though annual 
appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO 
estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by those 
agencies would be negligible. Enacting H.R. 5226 would not 
affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5226 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 5226 would direct 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. Because this information is already 
collected by regulatory agencies, CBO estimates that the cost 
of making it available online would not be significant.
    H.R. 5226 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed 
in italics and existing law in which no change is proposed is 
shown in roman):

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           CHAPTER 3--POWERS

Sec.
301. Departmental regulations.
     * * * * * * *
307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory action.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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) Aggrandizement.--The term ``aggrandizement'' 
        means--
                (A) any communication emphasizing the 
                importance of the Executive agency or agency 
                regulatory action that does not have the clear 
                purpose of informing the public of the 
                substance or status of the Executive agency or 
                agency regulatory action; or
                (B) any communication that is puffery.
        (3) 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.
        (4) 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.--Any public 
communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a 
pending agency regulatory action--
        (1) shall specify whether the Executive agency is 
        considering alternatives, including alternatives that 
        may conflict with the intent, objective, or methodology 
        of such agency regulatory action;
        (2) shall specify whether the Executive agency is 
        accepting or will be accepting comments;
        (3) shall expressly disclose that the Executive agency 
        is the source of the information to the intended 
        recipients; and
        (4) may not--
                (A) solicit support for or promote the pending 
                agency regulatory action; or
                (B) include statements of aggrandizement for 
                the Executive agency, any Federal employee, or 
                the pending agency regulatory action.
(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 5226. This bill 
would prohibit agencies from publicly disclosing information to 
``promote'' a pending agency regulatory action. Virtually any 
action an agency might take to communicate the benefits of a 
rule could be viewed as promoting the rule. The bill also would 
restrict statements of ``aggrandizement,'' which is defined 
more broadly in the bill than by GAO in certain appropriations 
decisions.
    The bill would require agencies to report to Congress every 
communication to the public--including every oral communication 
from an agency official--about the five regulatory actions the 
agency issued the most communications on in the previous year. 
This would be unnecessarily burdensome and likely would not be 
workable for agencies.
    Agency employees are already barred from engaging in 
``substantial `grass roots' lobbying campaigns'' when those 
campaigns are aimed at encouraging members of the public ``to 
pressure Members of Congress to support Administration or 
Department legislative or appropriations proposals.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\William P. Barr, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal 
Counsel, Department of Justice, Constraints Imposed by 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1913 on Lobbying Efforts (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, legislative provisions in appropriations bills 
often restrict agencies from using appropriated funds for 
``publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not 
heretofore authorized by Congress.'' GAO has identified three 
categories of agency communications that are restricted by 
these appropriations riders: (1) covert communications, (2) 
self-aggrandizement, and (3) purely partisan activities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Government Accountability Office, Department of Health and Human 
Services--Use of Appropriated Funds for Technical Assistance and 
Television Advertisements (Oct. 19, 2010) (B-320482) (online at 
www.gao.gov/assets/400/390290.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee Democrats agree that more transparency could be 
helpful in the regulatory process, but this bill is focused 
instead on what agencies may not disclose. This bill is another 
way for the majority to attack agency rulemakings with which 
they disagree.
    For example, the majority refers to the promulgation of the 
Waters of the United States Rule (WOTUS) in support of the 
bill. However, after reviewing the entire WOTUS rulemaking 
process, GAO concluded: ``Our review of the procedural steps 
taken indicates that the agencies complied with the applicable 
requirements.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Letter from Roger J. Cramer, Managing Associate General Counsel, 
Government Accountability Office, to Chairman James Inhofe, Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works (July 16, 2015) (online at 
www.gao.gov/assets/680/671628.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In that case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 
the Army Corps of Engineers were so concerned with giving the 
public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule that the 
public comment period was extended to 200 days, during which 
time the agencies received more than one million comments and, 
according to GAO, ``conducted 400 meetings nationwide with 
states, small businesses, farmers, academics, miners, energy 
companies, counties, municipalities, environmental 
organizations, other federal agencies, and many others.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\1d. at 2.

                                        Elijah E. Cummings,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]