H.R. 356House115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

Protecting Our Democracy Act

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 11:22 AM UTC

The Protecting Our Democracy Act establishes a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference—particularly Russian hacking and disinformation—in the 2016 U.S. elections. The commission will examine how electronic attacks were carried out, assess the impact, and recommend safeguards to stop similar actions in future elections. It reports its findings to the President and Congress and then dissolves.

Key Provisions

Creates a 12‑member National Commission on Foreign Interference in the 2016 Election to study how foreign governments, especially Russia, tried to influence U.S. elections through hacking, false news, and other electronic means.
Members are appointed by the House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, House Minority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader; they choose a chair and vice‑chair and are paid at a rate comparable to senior federal officials.
The Commission can hold hearings, subpoena witnesses and documents, and request information and assistance from federal agencies.
It must investigate Russian hacking of Democratic Party systems, the email of John Podesta, voter databases in several states, and similar activities by any other foreign actors, then identify lessons learned and recommend ways to prevent future interference.
It must submit interim reports as agreed by a majority of members and a final report to the President and Congress within 18 months of enactment; the Commission ends 60 days after the final report is delivered.
Provides up to $3 million in funding and authorizes staff, security clearances, and public hearings.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseDischarge Latest Action

Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Swalwell (CA). Petition No: 115-2. (Discharge petition text with signatures.)

May 17, 2017

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

January 6, 2017

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Foreign Affairs Committee

January 6, 2017

HouseDischarge

Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Swalwell (CA). Petition No: 115-2. (Discharge petition text with signatures.)

May 17, 2017

Floor Debate

16 members

What members said about H.R. 356 on the floor

+11

8 Republicans8 Democrats

Rep. Jared PolisD-CO-2 · Mar 28, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying…

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation. First, when the gentleman from Georgia said there were no amendments brought forward on this in the Rules Committee, that is partial truth but not the entire truth.

The entire truth is, when we have a process whereby Members believe that there might be an amendment process, there is something called a call for amendments which is issued. Often our chair, Mr. Sessions, and my friend from Georgia has heard Mr. Sessions come down to the floor and say: We are calling for amendments on this bill. Submit them. The Rules Committee will consider them and allow some of them to advance to the floor. At least you know you have a fair shot.

In this particular case, there was no call for amendments issued, which means, yes, Members could have spun their wheels, and sometimes you feel like a hamster doing that, just running around and not moving anywhere in one of those circles. And if we thought there was any realistic hope that amendments could be included, I, myself, would have been happy to submit one, as would many of my colleagues.

Chairman Smith actually requested a closed rule on this. So, again, the chairman of the committee and the Rules Committee gave every indication that we are not allowing any amendments to this bill; and that is what discourages Members from going through the work of submitting an amendment if they have a good idea what the outcome is already going to be.

So this is a closed rule. This is an antiscience bill. It is another example of how we go around the ability of Members to improve bills and, instead, work in a partisan, smoky, backroom manner where this bill emerges fully formed. The chair of the committee of jurisdiction himself didn't want any amendments or any changes to this rule, and the Rules Committee never called for those amendments.

Now, if the goal of this bill is somehow to increase government transparency, why don't we start with the lawmaking process and have an open rule that allows Democrats and Republicans to improve a bill and offer their best ideas forward? And if they are good ideas, they will be incorporated into the bill. If they are bad ideas and can't command a majority of this body, they will be defeated.

But, unfortunately, these partisan tactics that were seen trying to ram through legislation last week that failed when the Speaker and the President refused to work across the aisle with us on healthcare reform and now on improving the process at the EPA, instead of working with us to improve science, they are seeking to undermine the integrity of the important scientific work done at the Environmental Protection Agency and bury the Environmental Protection Agency in red tape.

The underlying legislation that this rule talks about has a lot of problems, Mr. Speaker, and so many problems, in fact, I won't even be able to talk about them all during my limited time for debate here. Hopefully they will be able to cover some more during the debate on the bill.

The first issue I want to address that is highly problematic with this bill, and it is something that is so important to the American people--liberal, conservative, and moderate--and that is the issue of privacy.

This bill would undermine the privacy of American families in a number of ways. What it would do is prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that exists to protect our health, from taking any action unless it is based on data that is fully available to the public. Now, that sounds good, ``fully available to the public.'' But what does that mean?

You see, normally the EPA has relied on peer-reviewed, scientifically valid research to inform its actions. Now that is something that the process of science across the world informs. It is a very important, well-founded process that respects the efforts of scientists everywhere and the diligence of a peer-reviewed process.

Much of these bodies of work utilize personal health information and confidential data which, currently, are legally protected from public disclosure. The EPA identifies the academic papers that it uses in the Federal Register so we have that transparency, but it doesn't release the legally protected private data--participants in studies, health of people--to the general public nor is there any scientific value to that personal information.

The value is in the studies, which are done scientifically and are already made public. This bill would force the EPA to either ignore these valuable studies because they utilize private

data or violate Federal law by sharing confidential patient information with the general public. We are talking about everything ranging from Social Security numbers, to whether you got cancer from something you were drinking as a child, to our most intimate health or lifestyle issues that are researched by the agency.

The majority here, the Republicans, are trying to include a provision in the bill that allows personally identifiable information to be redacted prior to the EPA making the information available. I am sure my colleague from Georgia will cite that, but that is woefully inefficient because it has a loophole in that very provision that basically negates that provision in another section by allowing the EPA administrator to allow any person who signs a confidentiality agreement to have access to all the redacted data.

So, again, basically, at the whim of the administrator, they can allow companies and people in there--the information can be put in front of people who have access to it, to use it in any way they want, and that is highly personal information.

Again, whether it is under the coverage of a confidentiality agreement or not, it is shown with unknown partners. This is not the Federal agency itself. This is perhaps even the company that caused the pollution that wants to come in and look at it or just various Americans with prurient interests who want to know intimate health details, and there is effectively no protection for that. It is entirely at the whim of the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

So that is an enormous setback for the privacy of American families and a woefully insufficient privacy protection with a loophole that is big enough to drive a truck through. There is not even a numerical limit on the amount of people or corporations that would be allowed access of that data. There could be a blanket permission from the administrator allowing thousands, tens of thousands of people, again, to see the individually identifiable data, including your Social Security Number, including your health details or medical records, including things that affect property value and affect health.

Another major issue with this bill, major fault, is it actually undermines the goal of the Agency itself. The Environmental Protection Agency, which has the congressional mandate to keep our air and water clean, to protect our health, this bill actually does the opposite by burying the Agency under a mountain of red tape and bureaucracy.

This bill removes sound, scientific, objective decisionmaking and replaces it with ridiculous amounts of red tape, adding to the process of regulations, adding to the process of rules, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to jump through additional bureaucratic hoops to use certain information, and making their entire goal of fulfilling their mission less efficient than if this bill were not the law.

The Environmental Protection Agency already uses a peer-reviewed scientific process. They publish in the Federal Register the reference of the works that they are basing their opinions on, just as the rest of America's scientific community does. This bill undermines the scientific process, is unscientific, and is opposed by so many scientific advocacy organizations, including opposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists who are strongly opposed to this legislation.

Now, on top of the red tape and antiscience aspects of the bill, this would also cost the government $1 billion of EPA funds; that is according to analysis of a very similar bill last Congress. These are funds that would be diverted away from protecting our health and safety, which is what they are doing now, toward creating more red tape and bureaucracy for the very agency that the American people entrust with the goal of keeping our air and water clean and the American people healthy.

Look, we all know what this bill is. It is a thinly veiled attack on science, part of the antiscience agenda that we are seeing from the Republican Party.

The budget that the President offered earlier this month cuts science funding to the bone. Enormous setbacks in the very research into lifesaving science in the future that would help improve our quality of life and duration of life and help our economy boom are being devastated under the President's budgets.

Scientific research creates billions of dollars of economic impact and innovation in States like mine, Colorado, and every other State. Science helps keep us healthy. It keeps crops alive and productive. It keeps our businesses open and keeps America as a global leader in innovation.

I also want to take a moment to highlight that, while this bill is being heard on the floor today, President Trump is signing an executive order that effectively repeals all of the work that the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies have done in the last 8 years to protect our planet from the impacts of climate change.

Unfortunately, while we focus on a bill that forces scientists to not use the best science available, the President has signed an executive order that will essentially begin the repeal process of the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan is a basic requirement for States to bring their emissions down to a sustainable level to protect Americans' health, to reduce the amount of pollution in our air and water, and to reduce the human impact on climate change.

The executive order also, unfortunately, undermines some of the commonsense protections we have with regard to fracking, something that is near and dear to my constituents and people in Colorado, as an area that is impacted by extraction activities.

This repeal, for example, would allow oil and gas companies to hide the chemicals that they use when producing oil and natural gas. Picture that: fracking wells near homes and schools who would no longer have to report what chemicals could potentially be leaking into drinking water or groundwater. How can that possibly further our goal to protect the health and welfare of the American people?

So, at the same time, we have this legislation undermining the scientific process of the Environmental Protection Agency and burying the Environmental Protection Agency under red tape, coordinated the same week with the President's disastrous executive order that will hurt the health of the American people and, ultimately, cost lives.

These are just another step in the undermining of science and the work to improve and protect the health of the people of our country. The Environmental Protection Agency relies on the best science available when developing new standards, and they are fully transparent about posting those scientific studies.

However, because many of the studies that this bill requires would impact legally protected private data, like personal medical records, to reach their findings, the Environmental Protection Agency could even be prohibited from considering that research.

This ridiculous restriction would force the EPA to ignore a lot of relevant information because of the desire of the researchers and the legal imperative of the researchers to protect the private data of the participants, ultimately leading to policies that are ineffective and are not based on sound facts or science.

Mr. Speaker, facts exist. Science and the pursuit of truth is an incredibly important human endeavor, and we can't afford to disregard that quest for truth in the name of a fiction-based reality that we increasingly seem to be headed toward as a nation.

Without sound and strong science, America will fall behind in the world. Americans will--our lifespans will be of lower quality and lower duration, and our economy will be hurt as we cede our leadership role to more forward-looking countries willing to invest in the future.

If this bill had been in place over the last few decades, I am pretty sure that the cloud of smog over Denver, Colorado, would probably still be there. Rivers and lakes across this country would suffer from pollution in a significantly worse way, and that is not the future that the American people want.

If the EPA is prevented from using the best available peer-reviewed research data on air quality, asthma will be causing more attacks and, yes, even deaths of children across our country.

Let's see this legislation for what it is--an attack on science, a giveaway to corporations who benefit from pollution, who don't like the fact that the EPA is using sound silence, who want to create and live in their own fictional

reality, where the externalities of their actions somehow don't matter.

We need the truth. The American people deserve the truth. We deserve the benefit of the outcome of the process of objective science, and this bill undermines that by burying the Environmental Protection Agency under immense red tape, while preventing them from using some of the very peer-reviewed studies that would lead to the very best decisionmaking possible to protect the health of the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some scoring from the Congressional Budget Office, dated March 11, 2015, that I include into the Record.

H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology on March 3, 2015

This is based on H.R. 1030 from last session, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, effectively the same operating provisions as this new bill. If there are any cost-saving elements in this new bill that weren't in H.R. 1030, I would encourage my colleague from Georgia to let us know because we are voting without scoring or costs on the newest version of this legislation. The previous version of this legislation, as I mentioned earlier, would cost $250 million annually over the next several years, $1 billion to implement, and that is the scoring from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office whose director was appointed by the Republicans on a substantially similar bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence community regarding Russian interference in last year's election. Even more troubling is FBI Director Comey's sworn testimony that the FBI is now investigating the possibility of collusion between members of President Trump's campaign team and Russia.

Mr. Speaker, the legitimacy of our electoral system is at stake; and, frankly, it is time that we rise above partisanship and that we get our job done and get to the bottom of this.

Unfortunately, recent actions by the House Intelligence Committee chairman have left many Members of both sides of the aisle convinced and the American public convinced that the committee is unable to conduct an impartial investigation of this critical matter of national security.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer up an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

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, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), a member of the Intelligence Committee, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, the EPA protecting our quality of life, our air, and our water has nothing to do with Heaven or God. It is based on science. Individual Americans like Mr. Gohmert and myself have our own faith traditions. I don't think there is anybody in the country whose faith tradition is to worship the EPA.

We have created the EPA for a purpose: to protect the health of the American people and protect our air and water. There are people alive today and people who are healthier today because of the work of the EPA. The converse of that, without the Environmental Protection Agency, some of us wouldn't even be here and others of us would be sickly.

It really doesn't make any sense to talk about people worshipping the EPA. We respect the scientific work of the EPA, and maybe this confusion between faith and science is what is leading to the undermining of the scientific aspects that the EPA reaches their conclusions on.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that shows the strong opposition from those who advocate for our health against this bill. Alliance of Nurses, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, National Medical Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, and others have all signed a letter in opposition to this bill because this bill threatens the health of the American people.

March 27, 2017.

Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical

organizations are writing to express our opposition to the

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest

and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our

organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving

public health.

Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health

decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our

organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for

seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on

standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these

bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the

review of complex issues and add undue industry influence

into EPA's decision-making process.

As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would

make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:

Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that

include their own expertise;

Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on

the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the

expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them

these highly competitive grants;

Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making

policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have

regularly sought their advice in the past;

Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA

Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and

unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues

already include public notice and comment; and

Reallocate membership requirements to increase the

influence of industry representatives on the scientific

advisory panels.

In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit

the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to

respond to important questions, and increase the influence of

industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best

interest of the American public.

We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation

would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it

develops policy to protect the American public from

environmental exposures and permit violation of patient

confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:

Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient

information to third parties, including industry;

Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research

that documents the adverse health effects of environmental

pollution; and

Impose new standards for the publication and distribution

of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing

requirements of many scientific journals.

Science, developed by the respected men and women

scientists at colleges and universities across the United

States, has always been the foundation of the nation's

environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making

process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in

the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the

earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the

research-based scientific advice that scientists have

provided to EPA.

Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,

not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's

decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in

EPA's policy-setting process.

We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.

Sincerely,

Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,

Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.

Harold P. Wimmer,

National President and CEO, American Lung Association.

Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Stephen C. Crane, Ph.D., MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Cary Sennett, MD, Ph.D.,

Last Congress, we considered a bill called the Secret Science Act, which was nearly identical to this bill. That was a bill that I submitted was at a cost of billion dollars. If the gentleman from Georgia has any evidence that this bill will cost less, I encourage him to bring it forward.

This bill, frankly, would force the EPA to be dishonest, to not use the best available science, and threaten the privacy of the American people.

Our goal should be to help the agencies that we charge with protecting our health to use the best possible science to do the best possible job that they can. We should not be throwing up roadblocks and red tape and bureaucratic mazes that hurt the quality of work and the science that we base our protections on.

We need to protect American lives from things like dirty air, dirty water, and pollution. We should protect the privacy of all Americans, but this bill doesn't protect the privacy of Americans. It undermines the goal of the Environmental Protection Agency.

My colleague, Mr. Swalwell, brought forward a very important motion. When we defeat the previous question, we have a motion to create a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

That is what I hear about from my constituents. I haven't heard from any constituents that say: We want our personal data to be revealed by the Environmental Protection Agency or we want to stop them from citing scientific papers.

That is simply not on the minds of the American people.

What is on the minds of the American people is that we need a full accounting for the Russian interference in the 2016 election, which is why we have a bill to create a bipartisan commission to investigate that Russian interference in a manner that has credibility with the American people, that can end this increasingly bizarre spy novel that seems to be unfolding in this city that we are meeting in now, and replace it with investigations and facts and a full accounting for the American people as to what happened and who was involved.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire if the gentleman from Georgia has any information as to why the new bill would cost any different amount than the prior version of the bill from the last Congress that was scored?

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, what the bill essentially does is two things in this regard. One, it will foist an unfunded mandate onto those who are conducting the research to go through the effort themselves of releasing the data. But more perniciously, it will prevent data and scientific studies that there are legal protections from even being looked at by the Environmental Protection Agency. They won't even be able to consider that data.

I think it is important that we get back to the topics that the American people care about. I hope that we can move forward with Representatives Swalwell's and Cummings' bill to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the Russian influence in the 2016 election rather than attack and undermine science, attack and undermine privacy, and attack and undermine the American people.

This bill undermines our privacy protections and opens the door for more Americans to get sick and hurt by pollution in our air and water. I hope that we can stand up against that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill and vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

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

Rep. Louise McIntosh SlaughterD-NY-25 · Feb 15, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Before I start, I include in the Record a letter…

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Before I start, I include in the Record a letter from over 20 healthcare provider organizations regarding the danger of cutting certain providers off from title X funding because they also provide abortion with private funds.

February 3, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Senate Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and

Leader Pelosi: As organizations representing health care and

public health professionals and the people they serve across

the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned

Parenthood health centers from participating in federal

health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family

planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood

from public health programs will severely curtail women's

access to essential health care services, including family

planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers

screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when

there is much uncertainty about the future of affordable

health care in our country, it is dangerous to cut off access

to the life-saving preventive care that Planned Parenthood

provides to some of our nation's most vulnerable patients.

Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in

improving the health and lives of people across the country.

In fact, 2.5 million women, men and young people rely on

Planned Parenthood for health care every year. For many

women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care--

offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to

women's health and well-being. More than 50% of Planned

Parenthood health centers are in areas with health

professional shortages, rural or medically underserved areas.

In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood health centers provided

nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than

360,000 breast exams. Additionally, Planned Parenthood

provides contraceptive services for over 2 million patients

and more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually

transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve

women's health, prevent an estimated 579,000 unintended

pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.

Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public

health funding would hurt millions of patients and undermine

health care access in communities across the country.

Limiting access to Planned Parenthood's approximately 650

health care centers across the country would prevent patients

from having timely access to basic preventive health care

services. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood

patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in

addition to those who rely on other essential programs,

including maternal and child health programs and Centers for

Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer

screening programs. In some states, Planned Parenthood is the

only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50

percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a

medically underserved or health professional shortage area.

Because federal law already requires health care providers to

demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion,

prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned

Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these

life-saving services.

In addition to limiting patients access to health care,

defunding Planned Parenthood is not cost effective. The

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that

approximately 390,000 women would lose access and up to

650,000 patients could face reduced access to preventive

health care within a year should Congress act to block all

Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood

health centers. The CBO also projects that excluding Planned

Parenthood health centers from receiving reimbursement

through the Medicaid program would result in a net cost to

taxpayers of $130 million over 10 years because of the

increase in unintended pregnancies without the contraceptive

care provided by Planned Parenthood. Other publicly funded

health centers would not be able to compensate for the loss

of affordable family planning and reproductive health care

services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to

health care has on women and communities across the country,

and we therefore strongly support policies that improve

access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that

would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve

to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we

strongly oppose any effort to do so. We also recognize this

as part of a broader effort to undermine access to safe,

legal abortion and curtail access to other reproductive

health care by limiting the ability of abortion providers to

participate in public health programs.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of

Pediatrics, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American

Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical

Student Association, American Medical Women's Association

(AMWA), American Nurses Association, American Psychological

Association, American Public Health Association, American

Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of

Reproductive Health Professionals, Doctors for America, GLMA:

Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality.

Midwest Access Project, The National Alliance to Advance

Adolescent Health, National Family Planning & Reproductive

Health Association, National Medical Association, National

Physicians Alliance, North American Society for Pediatric and

Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG), Nurse Practitioners in

Women's Health, Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive

Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Society for

Adolescent Health and Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal

Medicine, Society of Family Planning.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from myself and 161 other Members to Speaker Ryan opposing the Republican majority's efforts to undermine title X family planning programs and women's access to health care.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: We write to express our grave concern

for efforts to undermine Title X family planning. Despite

promises to focus on jobs and the economy, Republicans have

started the 115th Congress with a total assault on women's

choices, access to care, and economic security by:

Charging ahead to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable

Care Act (ACA) while making no promises to preserve vital

protections for women;

Providing little to no details on their plans to replace

ACA, while making a point to announce that their ACA repeal

package will block access to Planned Parenthood, a high-

quality, long-trusted provider of reproductive health

services;

Rushing to impose and dramatically expand the global gag

rule, harming women around the world; and

Advancing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion

Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) through the House,

effectively banning private insurance companies from covering

comprehensive reproductive health services.

Now, with their most recent effort to weaken the Title X

national family planning program through the Congressional

Review Act, Republicans have demonstrated that they will stop

at nothing to limit women's access to vital health care.

Sadly, this includes contraception and family planning

services that all women need.

For more than 40 years, Title X has served as a cornerstone

of safety-net care. As the only dedicated source of federal

funding for family planning, Title X allows a diverse network

of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income,

uninsured, or underinsured individuals and to those seeking

confidential care. In 2014 alone, Title X-funded clinics

helped prevent approximately 904,000 unintended pregnancies,

326,000 abortions, and 439,000 unplanned births. In addition

to direct clinical care, Title X also supports critical

infrastructure needs for health centers, including new

medical equipment and staff training that are not

reimbursable under Medicaid and commercial insurance. This

infrastructure is vital to ensuring safe, quality care at

health centers which serve and provide basic health services

to high-need populations.

Throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations,

Title X has been interpreted to prohibit state actions that

block providers or classes of providers from participating in

a Title X project based on factors unrelated to a provider's

qualifications to perform the required services. The networks

include providers ranging from state, county, and local

health departments as well as hospitals, family planning

councils, Planned Parenthood affiliates, federally qualified

health centers and other private non-profit organizations. In

fact, in instances when states have passed laws to

limit provider participation in Title X, federal courts have

consistently held that those state laws are contrary to, and

preempted by, federal law.

In response to a growing number of states targeting family

planning providers for exclusion from key federal health

programs, including Title X, the previous Administration

proposed the regulation ``Compliance with Title X

Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting

Subrecipients.'' The regulation, which was finalized in

December 2016, helps ensure patient access to family planning

services and supplies through qualified providers by

reiterating that ``no recipient making subawards for the

provision of services as part of its Title X project may

prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than

its ability to provide Title X services. During the

rulemaking process, the Department of Health and Human

Services received more than 145,000 comments, the vast

majority of which supported the rule.

Women across the United States, and the men who support

them, have had enough. It is unconscionable that this common

sense clarification has become a political football for

members of Congress who want to limit women's access to

comprehensive reproductive health care. We urge you to stand

in support of women and oppose this assault on contraceptive

access and care.

Sincerely,

Judy Chu, Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, Frank Pallone,

Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzan DelBene, Lois Frankel, Alcee L.

Hastings, Brenda L. Lawrence, Sean Patrick Maloney, Jerry

McNerney, Danny K. Davis, Eliot L. Engel, Raul M. Grijalva,

William R. Keating, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Gwen Moore,

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky.

Jackie Speier, Peter A. DeFazio, Katherine Clark, Dina

Titus, Linda T. Sanchez, Mike Quigley, Mark Pocan, Grace F.

Napolitano, Alma S. Adams, Mark Takano, Grace Meng, Yvette D.

Clarke, Kathleen M. Rice, Brian Higgins, Debbie Wasserman

Schultz, Pete Aguilar, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard,

Suzanne Bonamici, Luis V. Gutierrez, Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Scott H. Peters, Anna G. Eshoo, James P. McGovern, John

Yarmuth, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gene Green, Jimmy Panetta, Jose E.

Serrano, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared

Huffman, Nita M. Lowey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Niki Tsongas,

Andre Carson, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Zoe Lofgren,

Seth Moulton, Kurt Schrader, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

Sander M. Levin, Rick Larsen, Bill Foster, Frederica S.

Wilson, Adam Smith, David Scott, Pramila Jayapal, Paul Tonko,

Kathy Castor, Marc A. Veasey, Ted W. Lieu, Peter Welch, Ami

Bera, Eddie Bernice Johnson, G.K. Butterfield, Steven

Cohen, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Daniel T. Kildee,

Beto O'Rourke, Julia Brownley.

Marcia L. Fudge, Tony Cardenas, Joseph H. Crowley, Marcy

Kaptur, Alan Lowenthal, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Albio Sires, Eric

Swalwell, Joyce Beatty, Ron Kind, Pete Visclosky, Cedric L.

Richmond, Al Green, Darren Soto, Juan Vargas, Mike Doyle,

Bradley S. Schneider, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Raul Ruiz,

Elizabeth H. Esty.

Salud Carbajal, Robert A. Brady, Derek Kilmer, Gregory W.

Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, Theodore E. Deutch, Mike Thompson,

Hakeem Jeffries, Adriano Espaillat, David N. Cicilline, Tim

Ryan, Val Butler Demings, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, Rosa

DeLauro, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jim Himes, Donald Norcross,

Michelle Lujan Grisham, Matt Cartwright.

John Conyers, Jr., Gerald E. Connolly, Debbie Dingell,

David Loebsack, Stephen F. Lynch, Keith Ellison, Mark

DeSaulnier, John Garamendi, Denny Heck, Jamie Raskin, Nydia

M. Velazquez, Sheila Jackson Lee, David E. Price, James R.

Langevin, Colleen Hanabusa, Robin L. Kelly, Terri Sewell, Ben

Ray Lujan, Josh Gottheimer, Susan Davis.

Cheri Bustos, Michael Capuano, Jacky Rosen, Norma J.

Torres, Donald M. Payne, Jr., A. Donald McEachin, John Lewis,

Joe Courtney, Ruben J. Kihuen, Brendan F. Boyle, Jared Polis,

Ann McLane Kuster, Jim Cooper, Charlie Crist, Anthony Brown,

Filemon Vela, Ed Perlmutter, Lisa Blunt Rochester, John

Sarbanes, John B. Larson.

Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the majority is in the midst of an unprecedented and relentless assault on women's health--and many other regulations while we are at it--that are being overturned every day here.

Although it pledged to govern by prioritizing jobs and the economy, the majority is, instead, escalating its war on women with H.J. Res. 43, a dangerous continuation of its never-ending crusade against access to health care for women.

The majority started the 115th Congress by moving quickly to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, a law that finally barred insurance companies from treating women as being a preexisting condition. Without this law, women once again would pay a higher rate for coverage than men.

Think about that for a moment. If everybody doesn't know it, before this law, single women paid from 10 to 57 percent more than men for their health insurance in States that allowed gender rating. A lot of people don't understand this, but it costs American women nearly a billion dollars every year. But Republicans are rushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act without anything to take its place.

The majority has also advanced H.R. 7, a sweeping bill that would go beyond even the Hyde amendment, a 40-year provision that has been around for four decades too long.

This legislation wouldn't just make this amendment permanent; it would also place unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they wanted to pay out of their own pockets to access constitutionally protected abortion services.

These moves by the majority, along with the President signing a dramatic expansion of the global gag rule immediately after taking office, have brought millions of people pouring into the streets in protest.

During the National Women's March, millions of people marched all across the country and even around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the largest day of protests in American history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in the Nation's Capital. They were peaceful, without a single arrest reported anywhere in the country.

Far from respecting those rights, the majority is today considering a measure that marks an entirely new front in their war against women's rights. This is the most serious threat facing women so far in this Congress, and it is only February.

Programs supported by title X help provide lifesaving preventative healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and STD testing to the men and women who need them most.

It is outrageous that the majority today is trying to allow conservative State legislatures to pick and choose who can provide this essential care with Federal money. That is one of the worst things in the world. The luck of the draw of where you live will determine whether or not you have access that is entitled to all people from the Federal money. This would threaten health centers from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing the same problem today we faced for a very long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health. They believe the majority of persons--women--in the United States are incapable of making their own decisions.

Do you think that about your own mother or your wife?

Because Washington, D.C., is controlled by this Republican majority, the stakes for women are higher today than they have been in generations, as we turn over laws passed by the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the majority of Americans who oppose this dramatic government intervention into women's health care. They, unfortunately, have the votes to pass it, but they will have to reckon with the overwhelming majority of the public who understands it is time for the government to get out of the business of taking away women's healthcare rights.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a personal moment to speak about the departure of a long-time member of my staff on the Rules Committee. I have always believed that this committee is like family and that we have one of the most respected staffs on Capitol Hill. Adam Berg, the deputy staff director and counsel on the Democratic staff personifies this.

After a decade of working for the Rules Committee, Adam is beginning a new chapter on a different committee in the House of Representatives. His knowledge and guidance these last years have been immeasurable.

During his time here, he has married his wife, Erika, who is beautiful and talented, and became a father to his daughter, Ariel, who was singing songs with her mother at the age of 3 months. That is a precocious child.

Adam has played a key role as this committee brought landmark legislation to the floor of the House, including Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, and legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage.

The committee wouldn't have been as effective without Adam's counsel, and he will be greatly missed. I wish him nothing but the best in his new endeavor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to make this point one more time. I really believe that everybody in this House understands that not a dime of Federal money is used for abortions. It never has been, never will. There is meticulous care taken by Planned Parenthood to separate those funds. They have never been questioned in any way by the IRS as to how those funds are being used.

I am sick and tired of everybody saying you can't give anything to Planned Parenthood. The money that goes to Planned Parenthood from this Federal Government goes to reimburse for services rendered for the things I had talked about before: cervical cancer tests, cancer tests of all sorts, and health care that they cannot get anywhere else, such as screening for STDs. That is totally separate.

Yet, that fable that Federal money is used for abortions if you fund Planned Parenthood is totally false. I think it is time that grownups that can read in the House of Representatives do away with that notion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence community regarding the foreign interference in our most recent election. The fears have only been compounded by the troubling revelations published in The New York Times last night that members of the Trump campaign had been in frequent contact with Russian intelligence officials during that campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy is at stake. We are seeing the

same kinds of things that have happened all over Europe, as governments have been changing away from democracies. It is at stake here, and it is time this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and gets to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election.

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, I recently had the privilege of meeting hundreds of constituents who traveled from Rochester, New York, to Washington, D.C., for the Women's March on Washington. Some of them came with three generations, and it was most impressive, but it is troubling to me that we are fighting many of the same battles that were fought and won generations ago.

The unprecedented marches and rallies that have been happening are necessary because of efforts like this to continually chip away at women's healthcare rights. The sad reality is that politicians have always worked to put up new roadblocks between women and their health care. It has always been my personal belief that when faced with a decision that needs to be made about a pregnancy, a woman should consult whomever she chooses--certainly her husband, her spiritual adviser, her medical adviser, but no one wants to wait in the room until a Congressperson gets there to make the final decision. We are going way beyond our depth to try to make that decision for persons. The government should not be in the business of doing that. The majority has made attacking women's constitutional rights the first order of business this year, working alongside our new President, and it is shameful.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the other measure before us today would repeal the Alaska predator rule which protects the interests of all Americans in national wildlife refuges while banning some of the most inhumane tactics for killing, like killing black bears from an airplane and killing coyote pups in their dens. We should be listening to scientists who study and understand these species, not an ideological minority that sees every animal with teeth as a threat to civilization and a potential addition to their trophy hunting collection.

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

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

Rep. James P. McGovernD-MA-2 · Feb 14, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for…

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

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are less than 2 months into 2017, and today we have another closed rule, or as I call them, ``Putin rules.'' This is how they operate in Russia--no deliberation. It is simply astonishing that here in the people's House we continue to have this closed process: no amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down.

I have very serious concerns about the road we are traveling down. The 115th Congress is only 6 weeks old, and we have already ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. It should distress not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. This is now the norm and is very, very sad.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule would pave the way for the House to repeal two important consumer protections that help working families save for retirement. These protections went through a very lengthy process of review. We are repealing these protections without the committees of jurisdiction having any chance to weigh in and in a rushed process that is completely closed.

These protections, as I said, were reviewed by the relevant agencies; they were subjected to public commentary; and we are bringing them to the floor to repeal them without even giving the committees of jurisdiction an opportunity to actually discuss these bills, to discuss whether this makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, America is facing a retirement savings crisis, and rules like this--I should say, protections like this--are essential to helping workers plan for the future. As of today, 55 million Americans lack access to a way to save for retirement out of their regular paycheck. As a result, nearly half of all workers have no retirement assets. Yet we know that employees are 15 times more likely to save just by having access to a workplace retirement plan. These programs are a commonsense solution for working families and small businesses.

Republicans should be working to strengthen programs like these, not rip them apart. If you have a problem and you want to make a tweak, maybe you ought to work with the agency to make that tweak, but not an outright repeal.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, pushing dangerous bills like this in a closed process with no debate is a lousy way to conduct the people's business. But with the avalanche of alternative facts coming out of the Trump White House every day, it should be no surprise that the House Republican majority on Capitol Hill is carrying on in such a heavy- handed way. God forbid, in the people's House, we should actually deliberate and have debate and have the kind of give-and-take that the American people expect.

Mr. Speaker, as bad as this process is, as bad as dismantling the rules and regulations put in place to protect the savings of working families is, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about something that is very serious and troubling to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this administration regularly goes on TV and appears before the press--and let me say this as plainly as I can--and consistently spouts falsehoods. Now, I am told, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules and precedents of the House that there are certain things that cannot be said. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee and as somebody who respects the precedents of the House, I am going to be very polite in how I respond here today. I will speak plainly, but politely. I want people to understand that I would like to say things much stronger based on what is happening in this country and based on what is happening in this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to hurt anybody's feelings, but it is troubling what is happening, the falsehoods and fabrications that we hear each and every day. Some of it is trivial and some of it is silly, like saying that his inaugural crowd size was bigger than President Obama's. Who cares?

But some are more sinister and more dangerous, like the claim that 3 million to 5 million ``illegal aliens'' voted for his opponent in the 2016 Presidential election. Every fact checker, every Secretary of State, both Republicans and Democrats, say this is absolutely false. There is no basis for this falsehood. It undermines confidence in our political system. My fear is that the real purpose of this claim is to put in place policies to restrict voter rights in order to make it more difficult for people to vote in this country.

Mr. Speaker, every day it feels like President Trump and his White House are trying to set a new record in terms of misinformation. There are so many falsehoods coming out of this White House, it makes me nostalgic for Nixon.

President Trump, in a meeting with U.S. Senators last week, repeated another falsehood, that he only lost New Hampshire because thousands of Massachusetts residents were bussed to the State to vote illegally. This is simply not true. There is no basis for this statement. This is similar to the President's fabrication that 3 million to 5 million votes were cast illegally in the 2016 election. Plain and simple, President Trump and his White House staff continue to provide zero evidence to back up their claims of voter fraud.

On Sunday, when top White House aide Stephen Miller was asked about the judiciary challenging President Trump's unconstitutional Muslim ban, he aggressively attacked critics and said that ``the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.'' The powers of the President will not be questioned. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that.

President Trump might talk a lot about his love for Vladimir Putin, but this is not Russia. This is the United States of America. We have checks and balances to stop authoritarianism. Kellyanne Conway, when she is not giving free commercials for the Trump family business on the taxpayers's dime, is making up stories about the Bowling Green massacre, a terrorist attack which never happened, and spouting alternative facts on a daily basis. The latest falsehood from the Trump White House is one of the most serious yet.

In repeated interviews, both Vice President Mike Pence and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn--I should be saying now, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn--said that Flynn did not speak with Russian officials about U.S. sanctions before President Trump took office. A new report shows that that is blatantly false.

After the U.S. intelligence community overwhelmingly agreed that Russia had actively meddled in our 2016 Presidential election to tip the result in favor of Donald Trump, President Obama announced strong sanctions against Russia, including expelling 35 Russian diplomats or agents from U.S. soil. When Vladimir Putin responded by saying that they would not expel any U.S. officials in Russia--what many expected he would not do--a lot of red flags were raised. A new report now shows that, in the 24 hours that followed, Michael Flynn communicated with Russian Government officials about the sanctions and may have actively undermined U.S. foreign policy weeks before Donald Trump even took the oath of office. And now we know that last month the Justice Department informed the White House of Flynn's deception of the Vice President and of the American people in the days immediately following the inauguration.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous, and the fact that President Trump did not immediately fire Michael Flynn as soon as this came to light is stunning. I guess he was too concerned about crowd size rather than a deeply compromised national security adviser.

Mr. Speaker, getting rid of Flynn is not enough. President Trump must stop the blatant and dangerous falsehoods coming from his White House. We need a full and independent and bipartisan investigation not only under the purview of the intelligence committees; we need to have a full investigation out in the open so the American people actually know what happened and know how many others were involved in Flynn's undermining of our national security.

Who knew what when?

Was Donald Trump aware of these unauthorized talks with Russia while President Obama was enforcing sanctions?

The American people deserve the truth. They deserve transparency. They deserve this Congress to actually do proper oversight.

One of the most troubling parts of all this is that the American people would have been completely in the dark if it were not for the hardworking journalists and patriotic U.S. officials who helped bring this outrageous scandal to light. Now, more than ever, we need to support freedom of the press, to hold President Trump and his White House accountable.

The Republicans in Congress need to start doing their job by exercising the strong oversight needed. President Trump needs to know that he answers to the American people and he and no President is above the law.

Mr. Speaker, America's hardworking families deserve a Congress that puts them first and a President and a White House that tells the truth instead of spreading falsehoods to stir up fear and advance a dangerous and extreme agenda. We can have policy disagreements, but you have to tell the truth. You can't just make stuff up.

As we are seeing with this administration, alternative facts are contagious. The White House is rapidly losing the public's trust, and every day that Congress fails to hold the Trump White House accountable, we are losing the public's trust as well.

Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have a responsibility to stand up for the truth and hold the President and his White House accountable. We are here to serve the American people, and they need to know that we are fighting for them, not serving as a rubber stamp for this administration.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman is correct, I did rise to object to certifying the electoral college vote. Part of it was because I was appalled by the unprecedented Russian interference in our election system. I would urge the gentleman to read--maybe he doesn't want to read the classified version of the report--the unclassified version of the report. It is pretty outrageous. That is why so many of us have been calling for an independent bipartisan commission to investigate this.

But the other reason why I objected was because of voter suppression. I would say to the gentleman that that is an equally serious issue, that there is still voter suppression in the United States of America, and it is something that we need to deal with. I worry very much under the Republican majority and under this White House that we are going to see more of an effort to restrict people's right to vote.

Now, the gentleman is trying to paint a rosy picture about what we are doing here. I mean, we have had 13 closed rules, 6 structured rules, zero modified open rules, zero open rules. By the end of this week, we will be a third of the way to breaking the record for the Republicans' most closed Congress in the history of the United States, and we are still in February. My friends have outdone themselves in terms of closing up this process, of shutting people out from participation.

The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned, these protections that the Republicans want to repeal went through a long process, lots of review within the agencies, lots of public commentary, a long time to develop these protections. Now, if the Republicans aren't happy with it, one of the things they might do is they could bring up these rules in the form of legislation where we could have an open process, and people can amend and add and change and do whatever they want to do to make it better, if that is what they want to do.

But that is not what they are interested in. It is all about a press release. This is mindless legislating. When committees of jurisdiction do not do their job, do not hold hearings, do not do markups, and all of a sudden the Rules Committee just reports something out and sends it to the floor under a closed rule, that is mindless legislating. By the way, I am on the Rules Committee. I don't think that we have yet had a single bill come before the Rules Committee that went through committee. I am happy I am on the Rules Committee. At least you see a little action going on, but I feel bad if you are on any of these other committees.

This is a lousy way to do business, and I am shocked that my Republican friends come to the floor and defend the indefensible. This is not the way this House should be run. This is the kind of process, as I said at the opening, you would expect to see in Russia, not here in the United States Congress. Different ideas should be debated. People ought to have an opportunity to have their voices be heard. But yet here, in this House of Representatives--which will break records in terms of being the most restrictive Congress, I think, in history--the name of the game is to try to shut people out. I think that is wrong. I think my Republican friends should be ashamed of the way they are conducting themselves in this Congress. This is not right.

I just point that out because I think it is important for people to note that, by the end of this week, my Republican friends will be a third of the way to breaking their own record for the most restrictive Congress in history, with the most closed rules. That is something that I don't think anyone should be proud of. But it is the new norm here: shut everything down, shut everybody out. I think that results in bad legislation and, again, mindless legislating like we are doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned, as I mentioned in my opening statement, with the reports from our intelligence community regarding potential foreign interference in our most recent election. Everybody should be. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election. With the revelations about General Flynn coming to light, and all that we know about his dealings with the Russians, this is extremely timely.

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, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one similarity with Russia and what we are doing here today, and that is the process. This is completely closed. This is totally undemocratic. There is no opportunity for amendment. There is no opportunity for different opinions to be presented here. So, again, this process is deeply flawed.

Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle may want to defend it, but I will tell you this is unprecedented. With the number of closed rules that we have seen, you are going to break all records.

My Republican friends also have the distinction of presiding over the most closed Congress in history. This will outdo that because they are moving in such a restrictive and closed way. This is not right.

The idea that we are going to repeal protections with an up-or-down vote without having the committees of jurisdiction even do a hearing, even to weigh the very points of view on this, to bring these bills to the floor like this in a way that would not allow people to improve these protections is outrageous. But this is the new norm here. Everything is shut down.

And the gentleman is right that the previous question maybe is a little bit off subject from the two underlying bills here, but as the gentleman knows, we are currently debating the rule. This is a tool used to set the House's agenda and to prioritize consideration of legislation.

For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate time for us to explain to the American people what legislation we would like to prioritize and what agenda we would like to pursue in this House. Because the fact of the matter is, if we offer amendments to the Rules Committee by a 9-4 vote, we are turned down. We are shut out all the time.

So this is our only opportunity to be able to bring some of our priorities before our fellow Members in the House and to be able to let the American people know that some of us in this House are horrified by Russian interference in our election. It is unprecedented what they did. Anybody who sat through any of the briefings or even read the unclassified report, I don't know how you could not be horrified by the deliberate attempt to impact our elections.

And yet, we can't even get oversight in this House. The wagons have all circled around the President. You can't do anything that will make him uncomfortable. Well, the fact of the matter is this is about more than making a President of the United States uncomfortable. This is about defending our electoral system, defending our democracy.

And the gentleman from California, in arguing in favor of voting ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a bill that would allow there to be an independent bipartisan investigation of Russian interference on our election I think is even more important, given what we know about what happened with General Flynn. Many of us said, when he was being considered for the top national security spot in the White House, that this was a bad choice. Why? Well, because this is a guy who regularly peddled in conspiracy theories, whacky conspiracy theories.

Members of the intelligence community, members of our Defense Department regularly said, when he was being considered, that this was a bad choice. My Republican friends said nothing. Now we realize just how bad a choice this was and how bad the President's judgment was in allowing a man like this to be elevated to such a high position in the White House.

There are serious questions that need to be answered here. I would say to my colleagues, rather than trying to dodge and rather than trying to hide and rather than trying to frustrate attempts to get to the truth, there ought to be a bipartisan effort, similar to the 9/11 Commission, where people come together and, in an open, transparent way so the American people know what is going on, are able to get to the truth. That is what we are trying to do here. We have no other means to be able to get our views heard--certainly not in the Rules Committee. Every amendment we offer is turned down.

So I would say to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us be able to bring up the Swalwell-Cummings bill and have a vote on it. If you don't want to do an investigation, then vote ``no.'' But this is important and, I would argue, more important than the underlying bills, given what we are faced with. This is serious business, and it is about time my friends on the other side of the aisle treated it as serious business.

I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I have served here now for 20 years, and I have gotten to know some of the finest people in this Chamber, both Democrats and Republicans. I know there are a lot of Republicans who believe, as we do on the Democratic side, that we need to find out

what happened and we need to get to the truth. We don't want to see more attempts to block investigations.

I hope that those Republicans would join with us and vote ``no'' on the previous question because, if you vote ``no,'' we get to bring this up, we get to vote on it, and we still get to vote on the underlying legislation. This doesn't slow anything down; this doesn't stop anything; but it allows us, at this very important moment, to be able to debate something that I know a lot of people in this country are very concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, again, vote `no' on the previous question, and vote ``no'' on this closed, restrictive Putin rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry is, are there any amendments that have been made in order under this rule?

Can the Speaker respond to whether this is a closed rule, which means that no amendments are in order?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Rep. Jared PolisD-CO-2 · Jan 10, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the customary 30 minutes. We will get to the content of the bills in a moment, but there is a procedural…

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

We will get to the content of the bills in a moment, but there is a procedural issue here that disenfranchises millions of American citizens in this process.

We are in the 115th Congress since the founding of this country. We were just sworn in last week to begin that. There are 56 new Members who just started serving last week that have never served in this body before, and there were 56 people that served in the last session who are no longer with us. What we are doing here is we are taking bills that those former Representatives worked on and new Representatives have not worked on and advancing them to the floor without going through committee, without going through the regular order.

So, for example, you have two bills, H.R. 5 and H.R. 79. We will talk about them in a moment. These are Committee on Financial Services bills. They should have gone to that committee, and members of that committee, Democratic and Republican, would have had the chance to amend those bills in that committee and mark it up before it comes to the floor. That is the normal process. Both parties are now constituting those committees; we are putting people on them.

I heard you, Mr. Speaker, read just before we began this debate how a number of Members were officially appointed to those committees. That is what we do in our first week or two.

Fifty-six new Members should have a say on these bills. They will get a vote on the floor on these bills, but they were completely excluded from the committee process that wrote these bills. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, to not allow 56 new Members of this body to be the lawmakers that the people of their districts elected them to do. In fact, it disenfranchises the tens of millions of people collectively that those 56 Members represent. And I hope that, for future legislation, we can move through regular order and allow the new Members, as well as those who are returning, to be part of the lawmaking process.

With regards to these bills, we have largely seen these bills in prior sessions that people who are no longer in this body worked on.

The HALOS Act, I was proud to support last session and I am proud to support again. It addresses a potentially real problem. There is guidance from the SEC that--in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday I questioned the subcommittee chair--largely also addresses those concerns, but it is better to do it in statute and it is better to do it in the broader language that is included in the bill, which is why many Democrats--I hope a majority--support the HALOS Act.

The United States is the leader in innovation in the global economy, and this is a small piece of that. What we are talking about here are demo days where entrepreneurs can pitch their idea. I, personally, have been able to attend a number of those, and it is a question of who can be in the room when that occurs.

Should it only be millionaires who are allowed in that room? Or can it be the next great generation of entrepreneurs? Can it be students? Can it be aspiring entrepreneurs? Can it be community members who want to learn what it means to pitch and how to do it and how ideas are spread, or maybe they are looking for a job?

It doesn't change who can invest in those startup companies. They still have to be qualified investors. By the way, I hope we have the opportunity to work with Republicans on the definition of ``qualified investor'' because I think it is unfair to restrict investment opportunities to multimillionaires. We need to allow educated and qualified investors of all levels.

Just because somebody is rich doesn't mean that they are a good investor, and just because somebody has not yet earned a lot of money doesn't mean that they can't be trusted to invest $10,000 or $50,000 of their own money.

We made progress in the original JOBS Act with the result of crowdfunded investing, but that is only a small piece--almost an insignificant piece. Private placements are the much larger piece of capital formation for venture-stage startups in our country. If there is a way we can have an alternative to the net worth test that allows individuals to, perhaps, take a qualitative test of their knowledge and, therefore, qualify as an investor, they ought to be able to do that, too.

This bill does not do any of that. That is a controversial area. It is one that it will take Democrats and Republicans working together on to help fund tomorrow's great companies and allow opportunity for all people, not just millionaires and billionaires.

What this bill does is it continues to restrict the actual investors to the millionaires. Okay? But it allows other people in the room at least. That is a start. It allows an MBA student who him- or herself wants to, perhaps, come up with their own company to hear 10 or 20 companies pitch so they can assemble their own deck; somebody who might have a great amount of value to give as a mentor who themselves is a veteran of a number of companies. Maybe they are not quite worth a couple of million dollars. Maybe they are worth only--only, right?-- $500,000. Maybe they were a reasonably successful person worth $500,000, but they have a lot of knowledge to give.

Without the HALOS Act, it would be unclear whether that person would even be allowed in that room. So we want to make sure that mentors, up and coming, young entrepreneurs, and, frankly, up-and-coming entrepreneurs of all ages have access to the knowledge and the learning that can occur in these pitch events.

Congress has a role in making sure we have laws in place that really help build an environment that promotes innovation. When we passed the JOBS Act in 2012 that allowed for crowdfunding, Congress took a step forward. We have room to go there, room to go with private placements.

The HALOS Act is a small step, but it is a good one and a noncontroversial one. It creates a clear path for startups to participate in demo days, sponsored by government entities, nonprofits, angel investment groups, et cetera, and

a clear safe harbor from the SEC with regard to the definition of general solicitation to make it clear that business experts and others can be in the room, while maintaining that only existing accredited investors can actually participate in offerings under Regulation D for the purchases or sale of securities that are mentioned in those demonstrations.

Currently, sponsors of demo days are relying on the 12-year-old, no- action letter by the SEC to make sure that they don't face the consequences of failing to comply. The guidelines outlined by the SEC's no-action letter are actually incorporated into the HALOS Act. So, in many ways, this clarifies and puts in statute something that has been at the whim of the SEC for too long.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and others will join me in talking about the importance of angel investors for early stage capital to create jobs, to allow tomorrow's great entrepreneur who might not have any resources of their own today to raise the resources they need to hire people and succeed.

The Center for Venture Research estimates that U.S. angel investors invested $24.6 billion in about 71,000 small businesses in every area, every congressional district of our country. Many of those were startups in the early stages of building a company.

Tomorrow's company that employs 10,000 or even 50,000 people is today's garage startup trying to figure out how to get $50,000 or raise $100,000 to make their payroll or buy their inventory.

Angel investors focus their investment on local startups and much more so than, for instance, national venture capital firms that tend to be clustered at the coast. It is an important way we can continue to grow the economy in every ZIP code in this country, across the heartland and the middle of the country, not just the coasts where the venture capital firms themselves are situated.

The Colorado-based digital home design firm, Havenly, started by two sisters, utilized demo days as networking opportunities to perfect their pitch to investors, a very common path. After participating in a 500-startup demo day, the pair received nearly $13 million in investment capital from qualified investors. Now Havenly is a thriving business, employs hundreds of interior designers across the country, and I am proud to say it has a staff of 40 people in their Colorado headquarters. Havenly is a perfect example of how demo days provide opportunities to startups that create real jobs for real people in our country.

The HALOS Act simply gives the same opportunities to other startups that thousands of others have had when getting off the ground.

I believe the HALOS Act is the appropriate approach to regulatory relief. I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the legislation. It is targeted to provide clarity around a specific potential problem and certainty around what these events can entail.

Now, there is another bill under this rule as well. It is a bad bill. It is not a strong bipartisan bill. It is called H.R. 79. Since we began the 115th Congress here, the Republicans are promoting a deregulation agenda. Often this agenda results in this body, Congress, potentially being buried in having to do inordinate amounts of work to review the executive branch of government.

Now, we all believe in oversight of the executive branch. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear many Democrats speaking up about how important oversight of the executive branch is, particularly for the incoming administration.

We are not the executive branch. Congress delegates authority to agencies, under the laws we write, to fill in gaps and decide how best to implement the law. If we disagree, we can always change or amend the authorizing statute to make more clear the intent of this body.

However, these bills being brought to the floor by the Republicans would either require Congress to spell out exactly what ways to implement a policy in a changing world or give the authority of how to interpret and implement law to the judicial system, neither of which are wise or expedient choices regardless of who occupies the Presidency.

While I certainly will have more sympathy with this approach with President Trump in the White House than President Obama in the White House, I still believe this is the wrong way to go about the separation of powers under our Constitution.

This bill sets out 60 new analytical requirements that agency actions must meet before they can be implemented. In other words, any attempt by agencies to protect the public from toxic substances, make sure our planes and trains are meeting safety regulations, or make sure our food is toxin free would be subject to 60 new bureaucratic hurdles, effectively creating more and more red tape to tie the bureaucracy up rather than make their work quicker and more efficient, which is what Democrats seek to do.

This bill would bury the agency rulemaking process under a blizzard of bureaucratic hurdles and documentation requirements, literally burying the executive and administrative branch of government in red tape and paperwork. This bill would hold the regulatory process hostage to the whims of the very corporations and bureaucrats whose rulemaking it is designed to address.

The process that the bills call for have been roundly discredited by so many experts on regulatory policy from the left and the right and consumer advocates as well. The administrative law and regulatory practices section of the American Bar Association stated that these burdens would reduce transparency, reduce public input, threaten public safety, and, most importantly, not result in any better rules.

This bill is nothing other than a recycled effort that 56 Members of this body have not had a chance to participate in writing through the committee process to slow down the government and get in the way of agency rulemakings that are critical for protecting public health, safety, and our environment.

We are simply failing our constituents that we are elected to serve by spending time on legislation that would deliberately sabotage our own ability for our government to function efficiently. This is a bill that would make government less efficient. That is not what I hear when I am back home from my constituents--Democrat, Republican, Independent. I don't hear: Go to Washington to make government less efficient. My constituents want government to be more efficient.

Finally, this bill is being considered under a structured rule limiting the amendment process. There were over 30 amendments filed. Yet, we are only considering 16 amendments under this very overly restrictive rule. This is particularly onerous because, again, there was no opportunity for the 56 new Members through the committee process to amend this bill.

There was a new Member that appeared before the Rules Committee yesterday. Unfortunately, he was not even allowed to advance his amendment to the floor under this rule.

Another example is an amendment offered by a new Member, Ms. Blunt Rochester, who filed an amendment that would ensure that LGBT employees are protected from workplace discrimination. It would allow Federal agencies that are tasked with protecting the civil rights of employees to continue to do their work without being hamstrung with unnecessary requirements.

Civil rights protections do not fit neatly into a corporate monetary analysis, and our government has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans are protected from arbitrary or unjust discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Given the breadth and scope of this legislation, an open amendment process would have allowed this amendment to be debated if the majority wanted, perhaps even voted down, although I hope the majority would have approved it. It would have produced a more thoughtful piece of legislation. Yet, we are not even allowed to have that debate on the floor of the House, which is why this rule is wrong and why I stand in strong opposition to it.

We should be considering legislation to create permanent, high-paying jobs, investing in infrastructure to grow our communities, fixing our broken immigration system, and streamlining and improving our tax system through tax reform rather than recycling old bills

that 56 Members have not even had the opportunity to put their imprint on.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for those very reasons.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would establish a national commission to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 election.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have all been very concerned about the reports from our own intelligence agencies about foreign interference in the 2016 American elections.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) to discuss our proposal, the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Georgia is.

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

Mr. Speaker, so, in summary, when we defeat the previous question, we will then bring forward our bill to establish an independent report on foreign interference in this most recent 2016 election, something that the American people deserve to see, that we need to see. We need to put safeguards in place to prevent our election system from being hijacked by foreign powers.

With regard to the rule, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad, closed rule, particularly given the chance that 56 new Members of Congress have not had the opportunity to add their imprint to the bills that are before us.

The gentleman mentioned, oh, the Democrats did this 10 years ago. Well,

that is hardly an excuse that the American people buy. There were many things about the Democrats' tenure in this body the American people didn't like; and to simply cite some of those less popular elements of Democratic leadership and now say: Well, now we Republicans are going to do earmarks; now we Republicans are going to have a closed process that doesn't allow amendment; now Republicans are going to gut the ethics rule.

In over 200 years, you can always cite some precedence for that from both Democrats and Republicans, but those aren't good things. We want to learn from our mistakes, I hope, and not say, just because some Democrat or some Republican did this in 1952, it is a good thing to do today.

Mr. Speaker, we are 6 days into the next Congress. After we defeat the rule, hopefully, and defeat the previous question, we can bring forward an independent study on foreign interference.

With regard to these two bills, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the HALOS Act and, of course, oppose the ridiculously broad H.R. 5, Regulatory Accountability Act, which would simply add more paperwork to the bureaucracy, further reducing the efficiency of a branch of government that many Americans believe is already too inefficient.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Rep. Pete SessionsR-TX-32 · Mar 1, 2017

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…

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.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued January 6, 2017

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 356

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2017

Mr. Swalwell of California (for himself, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Barragán, Ms. Bass, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Ms. Brownley of California, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Castro of Texas, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Correa, Mr. Costa, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Delaney, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Esty, Mr. Evans, Mr. Foster, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Heck, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Keating, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Kihuen, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Kind, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Lofgren, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mr. Lynch, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McEachin, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Moore, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Peters, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Polis, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Raskin, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. Sánchez, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Soto, Ms. Speier, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Takano, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Titus, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Torres, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Vela, Ms. Velázquez, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Maxine Waters of California, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Welch, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Adams, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Higgins of New York, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, Mr. Lowenthal, Mrs. Murphy of Florida, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sires, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To establish the National Commission on Foreign Interference in the 2016 Election.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

Establishment

There is established in the legislative branch the National Commission on Foreign Interference in the 2016 Election (in this Act referred to as the Commission).

Purposes

(a)

Activities of Russian government

The purpose of the Commission is to examine any attempts or activities by the Russian government, persons or entities associated with the Russian government, or persons or entities within Russia to use electronic means to influence, interfere with, or sow distrust in elections for public office held in the United States in 2016, including the following:

(1)

Electronic hacks by the Russian government, persons or entities associated with the Russian government, or other persons or entities within Russia into—

(A)

the electronic systems of the Democratic National Committee;

(B)

the electronic systems of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee;

(C)

the electronic systems of Mr. John Podesta, campaign chairman for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton;

(D)

the electronic systems of former Secretary of State Colin Powell; and

(E)

the electronic systems of Arizona, Illinois, and Florida, particularly voter database information.

(2)

Efforts by the Russian government, persons or entities associated with the Russian government, or persons or entities within Russia to put forward, disseminate, or promote false news about the campaigns for elections for public office held in the United States in 2016.

(3)

Efforts by the Russian government to work with other governments, entities, and individuals to carry out activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(b)

Activities of others

In addition to the purpose described in subsection (a), the purpose of the Commission is to examine attempts or activities by governments other than the Russian government, persons associated with governments other than the Russian government, and other entities and individuals to use electronic means to influence, interfere with, or sow distrust in elections for public office held in the United States in 2016, including activities similar to those described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a).

Composition and compensation of Commission

(a)

Members

The Commission shall be composed of 12 members, of whom—

(1)

3 shall be appointed by Speaker of the House of Representatives and 3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate; and

(2)

3 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and 3 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.

(b)

Chair and Vice Chair

The Commission, by majority vote, shall choose a Chair and Vice Chair, of whom—

(1)

one shall be a member appointed under paragraph (1); and

(2)

one shall be a member appointed under paragraph (2).

(c)

Qualifications

(1)

Nongovernmental appointees

An individual appointed to the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the Federal Government, any State, or any local government.

(2)

Other qualifications

It is the sense of Congress that individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, law, public administration, intelligence gathering, foreign affairs, cybersecurity, and Federal elections.

(3)

Deadline for appointment

All members of the Commission shall be appointed not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(4)

Vacancies

Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

(5)

Compensation

(A)

In general

Each member of the Commission may be compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.

(B)

Travel expenses

While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) of title 5, United States Code.

Procedures of Commission

(a)

Initial meeting

The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission as soon as practicable. After its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call of the chairman or a majority of its members.

(b)

Quorum

(1)

In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), a majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum.

(2)

Alternative quorum for taking testimony

For purposes of taking testimony of witnesses, two members of the Commission may constitute a quorum, so long as at least one of the members is a member appointed under paragraph (1) of section 4(a) and at least one of the members is a member appointed under paragraph (2) of section 4(a).

(c)

Voting

No proxy voting shall be allowed on behalf of a member of the Commission.

(d)

Rules of procedure

(1)

In general

The Commission shall establish rules for the conduct of the Commission’s business, if such rules are not inconsistent with this Act or other applicable law.

(2)

Adoption at initial meeting

At its initial meeting, the Commission shall adopt the rules established under paragraph (1).

Functions of Commission

(a)

In general

The duties of the Commission are as follows:

(1)

To investigate attempts or activities by the Russian government, persons or entities associated with the Russian government, or persons or entities within Russia to use electronic means to influence, interfere with, or sow distrust in elections for public office held in the United States in 2016, including the following:

(A)

Electronic hacks by the Russian government, persons or entities associated with the Russian government, or other persons or entities within Russia into—

(i)

the electronic systems of the Democratic National Committee;

(ii)

the electronic systems of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee;

(iii)

the electronic systems of Mr. John Podesta, campaign chairman for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton;

(iv)

the electronic systems of former Secretary of State Colin Powell; and

(v)

the electronic systems of Arizona, Illinois, and Florida, particularly voter database information.

(B)

(C)

Efforts by the Russian government to work with other governments, entities, and individuals to carry out activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(2)

To investigate attempts or activities by governments other than the Russian government, persons or entities associated with governments other than the Russian government, and other entities and individuals to use electronic means to influence, interfere with, or sow distrust in elections for public office held in the United States in 2016, including activities similar to those described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1).

(3)

To identify, review, and evaluate the lessons learned from the attempts, activities, and efforts described in paragraphs (1) and (2) relative to detecting, preventing, protecting from, and responding to such attempts, activities, and efforts.

(4)

To make such recommendations as the Commission considers appropriate to ensure that foreign governments and persons associated with foreign governments never again use electronic means to influence, interfere with, or sow distrust in elections for public office held in the United States.

(b)

Reports to the President and Congress

(1)

Interim reports

The Commission may submit to the President and Congress interim reports containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.

(2)

Final report

Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.

Powers of Commission

(a)

Hearings and evidence

The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act—

(1)

hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, administer such oaths; and

(2)

subject to subsection (b)(1), require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or designated member may determine advisable.

(b)

Subpoenas

(1)

Issuance

(A)

In general

A subpoena may be issued under this subsection only—

(i)

by the agreement of the chair and vice chair; or

(ii)

by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Commission.

(B)

Signature

Subject to subparagraph (A)(i), subpoenas issued under this subsection may be issued under the signature of the chairman or any member designated by a majority of the Commission, may be served by any person designated by the chairman or by a member designated by a majority of the Commission.

(2)

Enforcement

(A)

In general

In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the United States district court for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.

(B)

Additional enforcement

In the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the United States attorney had received as certification under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).

(c)

Contracting

The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this Act.

(d)

Information from federal agencies

(1)

In general

The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this Act. Each department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the chairman, the chairman of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any member designated by a majority of the Commission.

(2)

Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination

Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and Executive orders.

(e)

Assistance from federal agencies

(1)

General services administration

The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission’s functions.

(2)

Other departments and agencies

In addition to the assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

(f)

Postal services

The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

Staff

(a)

In general

(1)

Appointment and compensation

The chairman, in accordance with rules agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.

(2)

Personnel as federal employees

(A)

In general

The staff director and any personnel of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 89A, 89B, and 90 of that title.

(B)

Members of commission

Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.

(b)

Detailees

Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.

(c)

Expert and consultant services

The Commission is authorized to procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

Public meetings; public versions of reports

(a)

Requiring public meetings and release of public versions of reports

The Commission shall—

(1)

hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate; and

(2)

release public versions of the reports required under section 6(b).

(b)

Public hearings

Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order.

10.

Security clearances for Commission members and staff

The appropriate Federal agencies or departments shall cooperate with the Commission in expeditiously providing to the Commission members and staff appropriate security clearances to the extent possible pursuant to existing procedures and requirements, except that no person shall be provided with access to classified information under this Act without the appropriate security clearances.

11.

Termination

(a)

In general

The Commission, and all the authorities of this Act, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the final report is submitted under section 6(b)(2).

(b)

Administrative activities before termination

The Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in subsection (a) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its reports, and disseminating the final report.

12.

Funding

(a)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this Act.

(b)

Duration of availability

Amounts made available to the Commission under subsection (a) shall remain available until the termination of the Commission.

13.

Definition

In this Act, the term electronic systems means computers, servers, and electronic communications.