Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017

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. 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 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. 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.

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

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.

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

``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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

How much time is remaining on both sides?

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. Chair, how much time is remaining?

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).

Again, Mr. Chair, can the Chair tell us the time remaining.

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. 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. It is a fair rule that enables thoughts and ideas from both sides of the aisle to be considered on the House floor today. It enables us to proceed with the work that the American people have sent us here to accomplish. It is of great measure of the work that we are doing today. We had an extensive and long committee hearing at the Committee on Rules yesterday with witnesses from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who felt strongly about the issues and ideas that were before them and the ideas which will be presented on the floor of the House of Representatives today, the underpinning of which are entitled to give the American people a better shot at a better life not only from a business perspective, economic development, but also the creation of jobs in the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying legislation contained in this rule. These bipartisan initiatives will enhance transparency, provide for a check on Federal agencies, and I believe help create a better process in the Federal Government for the people we serve, which are the people of this great Nation.

Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 to ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide expertise, opinions, and other comments during the rulemaking process that takes place in the administration. It was designed to provide guarantees of due process in administrative procedures for self-governing American citizens who have to live under these rules that are promulgated by those unelected and not necessarily known by the American people.

The Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, as it is commonly referred to, was designed to require agencies to keep the public informed of the information and ideas, procedures, and rules, and to provide a means for public participation in the rulemaking process that would take place here in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Federal bureaucrats over years and previous administrations have exploited the broad language of the Administrative Procedure Act to focus the rulemaking process solely for special interest reasons. Sometimes it is groups, sometimes it is ideas, and sometimes it is against the voices of the average American who wishes to participate in this process. This clearly was not the APA's legislative intent and reflects yet another encroachment on Congress' Article I powers which are enshrined in the United States Constitution.

This shift away from the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, has meant that most agency deliberations are carried out without a record or even a public review of those decisions that are made. Additionally, and possibly more troubling, agencies have undermined the purpose and the spirit of the notice-and-comment process by actively campaigning in support of their ideas using government resources and processes to that advantage.

The clearest example of this abuse can be found recently and numerously at the Environmental Protection Agency, known as the EPA. After issuing the waters of the United States notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA undertook a public campaign utilizing social media platforms to solicit support for what was, at the time, a promulgated rule. Following this abuse, the GAO issued a report finding that the EPA violated propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use of their fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations.

The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 helps ensure transparency in the rulemaking process by prohibiting Federal agencies from anonymously issuing statements for propaganda purposes, in other words, an agency lobbying for itself, its ideas, as opposed to the public comment period, final rulemaking, and then issues and ideas being discussed with and by the people of the country. Specifically, H.R. 1004 requires agencies to make available online information about public communications on pending regulatory actions.

Further, H.R. 1004 requires that agencies ``expressly disclose that the Executive agency is the source of the information to the intended recipients.''

Why is this important?

This is important because too many times information is provided without the basis of the facts behind it. It is opinion, Mr. Speaker. When members of the public see information that is provided, a source should be behind that information.

Further, H.R. 1004 prohibits agencies from ``soliciting support for or promoting . . . pending agency regulatory action.'' A simple concept of transparency and, I believe, professionalism that both sides of the aisle should not only demand, but also welcome from any executive agency, regardless of who is in the White House. It is in the best interest of the American public, and transparency and honesty related to that should be above reproach. Unfortunately, this has also not been the instance, as there are abuses and overreach by Federal agencies and unelected bureaucrats.

Presidents of both parties have required a centralized review of regulations since the 1970s. This has largely been handled by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as it is commonly referred to. Every President since President Ronald Reagan has required a centralized review of regulations at OIRA so that an agency can do cost-benefit analysis of regulatory actions, which means there is a centralized process for the administration to look at what they do.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton put into place Executive Order 12866 to designate OIRA as the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues. The executive order limited OIRA's review of regulations to only significant rules changes, those that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This office is responsible for reviewing the regulatory actions at both the proposed and final rulemaking stages. Unfortunately, lately, agencies have blatantly ignored the principles of the executive order from President Clinton, Executive Order 12866, and other governing authorities, including those requiring State, local, and tribal consultation in the rulemaking process have been ignored.

According to a policy center at George Mason University, agencies usually satisfy 60 percent or less of the requirements called for in the regulatory analysis, meaning that certain times we have found the executive branch did not even follow the well-known processes that are there to protect the people who they are trying to

provide services to. Mr. Speaker, we believe that is partially why we are here today, to clarify and correct these problems.

For example, between 2000 and 2013, 98 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's final rules contained no estimated compliance costs. That means that the agency chose not to follow the process that is prescribed by the executive order. Additionally, the EPA routinely justifies its regulatory activities by claiming benefits from matters unrelated to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, you can well see why there is consternation not only among people in the United States, but uncertainty with business that is attempting to follow the well- understood rules and regulations and the processes that go therein only to find out that our government chooses not to follow the rules and regulations that they should be following.

H.R. 1009 codifies the requirement for OIRA to conduct a review of significant regulations to ensure the regulations are consistent with applicable law and the principles set forth in the executive order. It also establishes new transparency measures such as requiring increased disclosure when extending review time, explanations about regulations that are dropped from the unified agenda, and a redline of changes that agencies make to regulations while it is under review by OIRA.

OIRA review is important to provide a double check on agencies to ensure not only compliance with the law, but the well-understood proposals that are made by agencies and the processes that they expect to understand in that process. That is why the main tenets of the underlying legislation have been supported by Presidents in the past, Members of Congress in the past, and even the judiciary that should expect that processes and procedures are followed properly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a note, if I can, and add into the Record a Statement of Administration Policy that came from one of our former colleagues, now the Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick Mulvaney. Mr. Mulvaney, in his new duties as the Director of the OMB, provided his first Statement of Administration Policy. It is concerning exactly the act that we are speaking about. I would like to congratulate the young Director of the OMB for his ascension to not only an important role, but helping the United States Congress to clarify for the American people that which is in their best interest.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 998--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily

Burdensome (SCRUB) Act

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

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

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

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

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

The Administration is committed to reducing regulatory

burden on all Americans. On January 30, 2017, President Trump

signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs, which provides for repeal of

two regulations for every new one issued. This historic step

accelerates the retrospective review process to make common-

sense reforms to regulations across the Federal Government.

Legislation is helpful where it amends agencies' regulatory

processes to ensure they are transparent, and appropriately

balance costs and benefits.

Each of these bills would address different aspects of the

regulatory process. The SCRUB Act, H.R. 998, addresses the

numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary

regulations that have accumulated throughout government. The

Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, H.R. 1004, would restrict

the use of agency funds to advocate on behalf of regulations,

and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, H.R.

1009, would codify specific executive branch regulatory

review procedures.

The Administration supports the SCRUB Act, the Regulatory

Integrity Act, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and

Accountability Act. The Administration looks forward to

working with the Congress on technical and other amendments

to these bills.

The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Congress

to rationalize the regulatory system and looks forward to

continuing to work together to reform the regulatory process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful observations on this rule and on the bills. I will acknowledge that yesterday at the Rules Committee there was a vigorous discussion--I thought, professional on both sides--where there was an idea about the intent of this bill and what it would, in essence, lay off on the administration, or any administration, in trying to make sure that they complied with the law.

I will tell you that our Appropriations chairman, as well as the Appropriations Committee, would be able to deal effectively with this if they believed they needed more money in order to accomplish these efforts. But I think that transparency is an important issue, and I think that our authorizing and appropriating committees will understand that, as they deal with agencies, a better dialogue, whether it be Republican or Democrat in office, needs to be able to deal with Congress, provide us information, provide the American people with information, and be forthright about the decisions that they are going to make.

I think that the new Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick Mulvaney, responded in his advice back--meaning the statement of administrative policy that directly took on this issue--that he looked forward to not only working with Congress on their needs, but also complying with the spirit of the law. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing today is providing information to a brand-new administration and saying to a brand-new administration that it is okay if you have your ideas about those issues that you would wish to take up, but you have to be forthright about what you are doing. You have to provide information not only to Congress, but the American people; and when you propose changes or rules, you have to be honest and forthright in doing that.

It may be a little bit more money, but this Congress will stand behind this. And I believe that the new Trump administration, at least through my conversations with our new President and the head of OMB, they intend for across the government, across a new administration to attempt to be forthright and direct about what they are doing and why we are doing it. Now, more than ever, whether you are a Republican or Democrat or not--you could be a person back home--you are entitled to try and clarify and ask information. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee, who served his State honorably as their agriculture commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do not have additional speakers. I would wish to not only close myself, but to present a little bit more information. I would allow the gentleman, if he were prepared to offer his close, I would do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been fair and above board. I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Colorado not only for his service on the Rules Committee, but his service today in annunciating not just his party's policies and ideas on this, but also his own, as he brings a vast business experience not only to Congress and to the Rules Committee, but to serve the people of his congressional district.

However, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I think that this will be overwhelming success on a bipartisan basis today, and the reason why is, because what we are doing is in the best interest of the American people.

We are doing this because the American people want and need an opportunity, as they petition their government, to know that they were heard, for their issues and ideas to be seen. And I would think now more than ever, especially if it were a prior administration, we would be accused of trying to jam down their throats something that we saw that was trying to put an undue burden on another administration. But, in fact, we are not.

And so the thoughts and ideas today should be--regardless of the administration, regardless whether you completely agree, or somewhat disagree,

we would want that government, that agency to be able to operate with the confidence of the American people. And that means that they are not there for their own purposes, or special interests, or for them to skew facts or information that might be provided to the American people, but, in fact, were opinions as opposed to something that was reasonably gained as a result of a scientific fact or information that was based on facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, the regulatory state in this country has grown exponentially and, really, to unprecedented levels. Unelected bureaucrats have exceeded their authority, they are creating regulations, they are negatively impacting the marketplace, which causes a problem for me back home, and Members of Congress back home, as businesses talk about following rules and regulations rather than the marketplace, and trying to add employees and to turn the cash register.

Accordingly, the American Action Forum, when totaling all available regulatory costs reported by executive agencies, the Obama administration imposed more than $600 billion in regulatory costs from 2009 to 2014. That is $600 billion worth of regulatory costs imposed on the American people by unelected bureaucrats that have increasingly become unaccountable, not only to economic growth, but also to the American people, and I believe to Congress.

Other studies have produced the same conclusion and it is this: that runaway regulations have a disastrous effect on the United States economy, impacting not only job creation, but also the effective opportunity for the free enterprise system to exist.

Federal agencies should exist to serve the American people. And as such, they should heed and respect their views and comments, while staying within the parameters of laws passed by lawmakers or ensuring the rulemaking process is transparent and free of propaganda.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate you allowing us time to debate this on behalf of the American people today. This rule and the underlying legislation will provide an important check on the regulatory state that we find exists today in the United States, and to return transparency, responsiveness, and, I believe, honest dignity to the American people that we serve, for this overreaching process. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule and both underlying bills, H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act; and H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act.

These two bills that would be debated under this rule were both reported out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform without a single Democratic vote. So these are not bipartisan bills. They were reported out of committee only by Republicans. The bills threaten transparency, undermine the independent authority of government agencies, and weaken the separation of powers between our three branches of government at a time in our history when we need it the most.

I sat in this Chamber last night as President Trump spoke about fixing healthcare and immigration systems, but we haven't seen those plans yet. Instead, all we have seen are these kinds of not-bipartisan bills that don't accomplish a lot.

Now, these two bills claim to offer accountability and integrity in the rulemaking process, but when you look past their title, you see what they really are is just another backdoor attack on American workers, an attack on our environment and protecting our public health.

First with regard to H.R. 1009, much has been said since the start of this Congress about the importance of our checks and balances in our system. We have a new President who isn't shy about blurring the lines of separation between the executive, legislative, and even the judicial branches of government. He publicly condemned a judge based on his ethnicity in a private case. He also attacked a judge who struck down his order on immigration. I find it troubling to be debating a bill that would make government agencies even more dependent on the judgment of the White House when many of us question the judgment of the gentleman currently occupying the Oval Office.

Under current law, independent agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, and many others don't need approval from the administration to move forward with a new rule or regulation. Misleadingly characterized as simplifying the existing executive order, what this bill would actually do is require all rules made by independent government agencies to be sent to the White House, centralizing the power of the White House and the power of the President.

This bill effectively mandates improper influence by the White House.

In addition, the bill repeals language that exempts rules considered to be lifesaving from having to undergo a full review process.

If those reasons weren't enough to dissuade my colleagues from voting in favor of this rule, let me briefly discuss the unlimited review window this bill would create to derail and delay important rules. Frankly, important provisions like this are the reasons why the American people, often rightfully, accuse the government of waste, fraud, and abuse.

By giving the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs unlimited time to review rules, Congress would effectively allow the White House to bury rules in red tape and paperwork, the very red tape and paperwork and bureaucracy that the American people are frustrated with. This bill is a recipe to make government less efficient rather than more efficient. It would grind the rulemaking process to a halt by burying the very limited staff of the White House under a whole array of rules from independent agencies that, with no timeline, would simply sit in the White House either going nowhere or being studied by committee after committee after committee. Perhaps, after several years, they will see the light of day after even more bureaucrats have had the chance, at your taxpayer expense, to read those rules.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill makes the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs somehow more accountable by Congress by authorizing the statute, but that is not the case. This bill, like many other bills we have seen in this Congress, frankly, is a solution in search of a problem.

I don't disagree that the rulemaking process should be simplified, but there is a collaborative, bipartisan way to do that. This bill does not represent that idea. If passed, H.R. 1009 would reduce the ability of independent government agencies to work effectively, create additional paperwork and bureaucracy, and transfer significant power and authority to the White House and the President.

Frankly, this bill is a serious threat on our checks and balances at a time we need it the most. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take that into account when voting on the rule and the bill today.

The second bill under this rule is H.R. 1004, the so-called Regulatory Integrity Act. It is another example of Republican attacks on health and safety protections.

The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 requires executive agencies to provide extensive and, often, gratuitous information on their websites related to any pending regulatory action they are seeking to make. Again, it is difficult to find a Member of this body who doesn't believe that we want more transparency, more accountability, and more streamlining of regulations. Of course, those are priorities for the country. This bill does not do that.

I don't believe an outright attack on our rulemaking process meant to protect our health, meant to protect people from fraud and abuse, and giving yet more hoops for agency officials to jump through in doing the job that Congress has asked them to do, in no way is that the correct way to go about increasing transparency in government. This bill makes it more difficult for all of the agencies that we have set up, that we have directed, to do their job: to protect the American public.

The new reporting requirements that are included in this bill will distract agencies from their core missions of keeping Americans safe and, again, bury them under mounds and mounds of additional paperwork requirements. Many of these agencies have seen their budgets cut by the Republicans, and the reporting requirements will take up even more of their very limited capacity that they have under the budget constraints they operate at.

As many of us know, this bill was born out of a 2015 GAO study that determined that the Environmental Protection Agency had violated certain restrictions during the rulemaking process for waters of the U.S. To me, the fact that that determination was made by an independent government agency is proof that our oversight process works. If there is a bipartisan bill we can do to implement best practices, I think that we could have strong Democratic support for that. This bill does not do that.

Republicans are ignoring the fact that the GAO also concluded that ``the agency complied with the applicable requirements,'' and were so concerned with providing the public with opportunities to comment that the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers conducted over 400 meetings across the country. If this bill passes the House, the ability of agencies to do those kinds of outreach efforts and stakeholder involvement efforts would be limited. It would be limited by vast and unnecessary additional work, red tape, and bureaucratic reporting requirements that would be mandated under this bill with the same limited resources they have today. I think that it would be better use of their limited resources to do those kinds of field opportunities across the country, giving American stakeholders and people involved the opportunity to testify about how those rules affect them.

The most immediate and certain effect of this bill would be to virtually prohibit agencies from disclosing to the public any benefits that agency actions would have in protecting the American people. If an agency is no longer allowed to explain how the rulemaking process would benefit and protect the American people, the public, of course, would view this as some sort of burdensome regulation. Perhaps that is the goal of this bill from a propaganda perspective.

Finally, this bill will ban agencies from soliciting support for their regulations, seemingly forgetting that current law already does this. If there is need to clarify it again, we can certainly do so in a bipartisan way.

This unsettling trend of trying to, in fact, regulate regulations actually leads to additional bureaucracy and paperwork. It is a disservice to American workers and families, to our environment, and to many Americans who don't know if they can make their rent or have health insurance at the end of the month. It is a disservice to the thousands of military and civilian workers no longer able to seek employment in the Federal Government and a disservice to so many American children and adults.

The fact that we are even considering these bills illustrates that the priorities in Congress are not in line with the priorities of the people that we represent. I have not heard an outcry from my constituents on any of these issues. I hear about health care. I hear about immigration reform, improving our schools, making college more affordable, not that we need more administrative hurdles to the rulemaking process. I haven't heard it once from a single constituent at 51 townhalls I had last session.

The passage of this bill will put a significant administrative burden on government agencies that issue rules to protect Americans. It would limit the ability of the agencies that we set up under our authorizing statutes to do their job: to protect the health and safety of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject these bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has any remaining speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned over the reports from our intelligence community regarding foreign interference in our most recent election. When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation, H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would create an independent commission to investigate the foreign interference in our 2016 election.

This is not a partisan matter. Both Democrats and Republicans have called for this investigation and a full accounting for the American people. Frankly, the American people deserve to know what happened, and Congress has the responsibility to get to the bottom of it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, when I was back in my district earlier this year, again, I didn't have a single constituent raise issues over regulatory reform. I did have people ask if we can have a full accounting of foreign interference with our more recent election, and, if we defeat the previous question, that will give us an opportunity to do that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I will also urge them to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bills.

Just so no one is here under any illusions, Republicans do currently control the House, and the Senate, and the White House. Frankly, they have the ability to set the agenda, and they could use that agenda to advance real reforms like infrastructure, or tax reform, or fixing our broken immigration system, repairing broken roads and bridges. Today, instead, we are debating something so obscure that I don't think the American people know what OIRA does or how to pronounce it; another bill that has to deal with whether regulations are seen and signed off on by the staffers in the White House; and two bills that don't do anything but undermine the separation of powers, undermine the authority of this institution, the United States Congress, and make it harder for public agencies to do the job that we have instructed them to do to keep the American people safe.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up H.R. 356, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, and oppose the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), I have an amendment at the desk.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary and 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.

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.

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.''

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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.