Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1004) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of information relating to pending agency regulatory actions, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1009) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to review regulations, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be with my distinguished colleague from Michigan on this legislation, which is part of a package of bills brought forward by the majority, which we believe undermine the ability of Federal agencies to effectively promote the public interest.

To begin with, it is quite clear that this legislation is unnecessary. Current law already bans the use of agency funds for ``publicity or propaganda purposes.'' Current law also currently bars agency employees from grassroots lobbying campaign designed to pressure Members of Congress to support or to oppose agency proposals.

So, at the very least, all of this is duplicative, which wouldn't be so bad just to add another level of red tape and legislation, except for this: If you look at the legislation, under Restriction, part 2, it says:

``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action, may not--

``(A) directly advocate, in support of or against the pending agency regulatory action, for the submission of information to form part of the record of review for the pending agency regulatory action. . . .''

So let's parse that for a moment. What they are saying is that the agency may not directly advocate to the public: Please tell us whether you are for or against this regulation and why.

They are not trying to prevent a viewpoint-specific propaganda intervention by the agency. This would actually stifle the ability of the agency to solicit anybody's point of view to go out on Facebook and ask, ``What is your position about this,'' and to use social media to solicit the public's input.

So although the legislation masquerades as an attempt to promote government transparency, it actually radically undercuts government transparency and the ability of the agencies to solicit the widest possible input.

It also says that the agency may not appeal to the public or solicit a third party to undertake advocacy in support of or against the pending agency regulatory action.

Now, I would have no problem if what they were trying to do is simply restate the current ban on one-sided propaganda inquiries by an agency to get one side to come out and support or oppose an agency rulemaking, but that is already against the law.

What they are trying to do is to cut off the ability of the agency to solicit any public input on all sides of the issue.

Why would we place that kind of duct tape over the Administrative Procedure Act?

Well, one thought, if you look at this proposal in the context of everything else they have brought forward this week, they want to try to reduce everything to a cost-benefit analysis. That is, what would the cost to polluters be? What would the cost to the violators of the public interest be?

They never look at what the benefit to the public is of the regulations, and they want to do it behind closed doors and then prevent the agencies from going out and aggressively soliciting the input of the public on all sides of the issue.

So we don't see what the need for this proposal is. We believe that it will have a severely chilling effect on the ability of agencies to do their job. They continually talk about one case, the WOTUS case, the waters of the United States case, where I cheerfully and readily admit that the agency went too far in terms of campaigning for its proposal. But they were called on that. The GAO already determined that they ran afoul of the prohibitions.

So they have one case which was dealt with completely legitimately within the law, and they have not cited another case.

I would gladly yield my time to my distinguished colleague from Michigan if he can invoke one other case where there was a problem or explain why the resolution of this problem was not sufficient in this case, because I think everybody understood that the agency had gone too far. It was dealt with. The problem is over.

So now we have a so-called cure, which is far worse than the underlying disease because the so-called cure is going to stifle and chill the ability of every Federal agency in the United States Government to go out and aggressively solicit public input. That is what we want in the agency process.

Now, yesterday, they just voted to create a new roving supercommission that would pore through the rules of all the different Federal agencies and bring back a package and then ask us to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down so they can just more readily dismantle public regulation.

Let's be very clear about it. We're talking about regulation that protects clean air. They rejected an amendment that would carve out the Clean Air Act from that bill. We're talking about regulation that protects clean water. We're talking about regulation that protects the purity of our food and our drugs. We're talking about regulations that advance our interests in a clean environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

So it seems like they want to put the whole Federal regulatory process into a straitjacket, prevent the public from being involved, and prevent the agencies from going out and soliciting public input. That doesn't sound like giving government back to the people. That sounds like giving government over to billionaires, special interests, and big corporate powers that have all the lobbyists in Washington and know how to get things done behind closed doors.

Mr. Chair, I invite my distinguished colleague from Michigan to address any of the questions I have if there are any examples that he can provide of problems that would yield the need for such a dramatic shutdown on the ability of agencies to solicit public input.

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

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

Again, the advocates for the legislation returned to this one single case, which we all agree about. The GAO ruled that the EPA ran afoul of the prohibition on propaganda and on campaigning.

So the law worked there. The GAO blew the whistle on that. They shouldn't be coming out on one side of an issue and running a propaganda campaign. The government should not be engaged in propaganda. We all agree to that.

This legislation does something completely different. This legislation, rather than just saying a good day's work to the GAO for blowing the whistle, it says: Now we are going to tell all the Federal agencies and departments that have been out soliciting public input on all sides of issues, saying there is a regulation that has come up about clean air, about clean water, about food, about drugs, about the disposal of nuclear waste, about radioactive materials, and it tells them you can't do that anymore. You can't go out and solicit public input.

It places a complete chill on the ability of the government to go out and invite public participation in our government. Why? They keep returning to one case where the GAO blew the whistle where everybody agrees they were out of bounds.

A flag was thrown on the play, but now they want to use that in order to essentially impose a gag rule on Federal agencies across the land who are doing our work. The much reviled regulation that the agencies are engaged in is an attempt to flesh out the laws that we pass in this body because we don't want to be setting all of the particular rules about exactly how many pollutants can be in this water, in this

stream, in this river, in this creek, and so on, because we are not scientific experts on how many pollutants can be put into the air here and there. So it is delegated to government agencies.

But when they go through the Administrative Procedure Act and they have a rule and comment process, they should be able to go out and invite the public to participate.

Again, I invite my distinguished and thoughtful colleagues on the other side to cite one other case. Can they cite one case where the GAO did not blow the whistle? Can they cite some other litany of examples where there has been a real problem with government agencies being overzealous where it has not been corrected by the GAO?

The silence is deafening.

They have used the example of one problem that was caught, that was corrected, in order to try to demolish the ability of Federal agencies to go out and solicit the public's input.

To me, that is a familiar experience now, because I have been in the House of Representatives for just 2 months, and, in the committees I serve on, we continue to vote on bills where we have not had a single public hearing. We are not hearing from any of the groups.

I have a letter here objecting to this legislation that has been signed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Association for Justice, American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial Reform, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, BlueGreen Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress, Earthjustice, Economic Policy Institute, Environment America, Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers, League of Conservation Voters, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and on and on and on.

I would like to have heard from these people in this process, but it seems like all we are getting from the other side is an attempt to have a curtain of darkness fall over all public process. We would like to have hearings. We want groups to be involved. But these people were not invited to testify. They didn't have a chance to opine on this.

Mr. Chair, in general, the problem here is that, rather than making government more transparent, we are making government more opaque. Rather than making government more open, we are making government more closed. Rather than reaching out to the public and inviting it into the rulemaking process, we are shutting the door and closing the blinds on it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we are finally having some light here on the subject.

My distinguished colleague and fellow freshman from Michigan is most concerned about what did take place in the Waters of the United States case. He praises the GAO for responding to Senator Inhofe's inquiry.

We all agree that the GAO determined that the EPA ran afoul of existing prohibitions in law on propaganda, on taking a side in an issue. A flag was called on the play and the problem was dealt with.

If you find a kid shoplifting a candy bar, and you catch him, you remove him from the store, you tell him not to do it again. You don't then go pass a law saying that anybody under 18 cannot enter any commercial establishment in the country. The law worked in that specific case.

But, you see, they have taken a sledgehammer to a mosquito, and the mosquito was already killed. So now what they are busting up is the ability of agencies across the country simply to use the social media to go out and to solicit and invite public input into the rulemaking process. What are we afraid of?

Justice Brandeis said that sunshine is the great disinfectant. We want the public involved. We want the public's engagement.

So, again, I invite my thoughtful colleagues on the other side to cite one case of an agency doing this that was not dealt with by the GAO. I can cite you countless examples of cases where Federal agencies have gone online to invite public input in a completely objective and neutral way. Now we are creating a chill over that process because of this ban on soliciting advocacy from the public on either side of the issue.

So I simply don't get it, and I am puzzled why they continually talk about one case which was happily resolved under existing law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record several letters opposing the bill.

Coaltion for

Sensible Safeguards,

February 28, 2017.

Re House floor vote of H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity

Act.

Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

(CSS), an alliance of over 150 labor, scientific, research,

good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and

public interest groups, strongly oppose H.R. 1004, the

Regulatory Integrity Act.

The bill is a brazen attack on the public's right to know

by micro-managing the type of information that agencies are

allowed to communicate to all of us when taking actions to

protect the public, our economy, and the environment. An open

government that prioritizes democratic public participation

requires agencies to be able to effectively convey

information to the public and make agency policy positions

clear to the public. This bill will make our government less

open and less democratic and should therefore be rejected.

H.R. 1004 will significantly inhibit federal agencies'

ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and

transparent way regarding its work on important science-based

rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public. As a

result, the bill will lead to

decreased public awareness and participation in the

rulemaking process in direct contradiction of the

Administrative Procedure Act and agencies' authorizing

statutes, which specifically provide for broad stakeholder

engagement.

Substantial ambiguities in the bill threaten to create

uncertainty and confusion among agencies about what public

communications are permissible, and thus risks discouraging

them from keeping the public apprised of the important work

that they do on its behalf. In an era when agencies should be

increasingly embracing innovative 21st century communications

technologies needed to reach the public, including social

media, H.R. 1004 sends exactly the wrong message.

The legislation strictly prohibits agencies from issuing

``public communications'' that ``emphasize the importance''

of a particular agency action unless the communication has

the ``clear purpose of informing the public of the substance

or status'' of the particular action. The legislation applies

to a wide swath of regulatory actions including rulemakings,

guidance, policy statements, directives and adjudications.

While H.R. 1004 assumes that the distinction between

informing the public of an agency action and emphasizing the

importance of that action is self-evident, in practice the

distinction is anything but clear. As a result, agencies are

likely to avoid any public communications that risk running

afoul of this ambiguous prohibition, no matter how

informative the communication might be for the public.

For example, various executive orders and statutes compel

agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis on their pending

rulemakings, and thus to determine whether the rule's

benefits outweigh its costs. As currently written, the

Regulatory Integrity Act could potentially prohibit an agency

from communicating the results of such an analysis when it

concludes that a particular rule generates net benefits.

After all, that conclusion is tantamount to declaring that

the rule makes society better off on balance. Instead, the

agency would likely be forced to simply share the basic

information that they had conducted a cost-benefit analysis

of the regulation without being able to share the further

crucial information that the regulation's benefits exceeded

the costs. Given that many of the bill's sponsors

enthusiastically endorse the expanded use of cost-benefit

analysis in the rulemaking process, these kinds of arbitrary

prohibitions on communications concerning cost-benefit

analysis seem especially peculiar.

Agencies would encounter this problematic scenario when

deciding to share vital information, such as:

How many lives would be saved by a regulation;

How much property damage would be averted;

How much money consumers would save; and

Any of the other myriad public benefits that regulations

are designed to provide.

The stark absence of any clear bright-lines in the

legislation delineating what is and what is not prohibited

public communications is sure to have a chilling effect on

agencies, with the predictable result that agencies will be

less willing to share crucial information with the public and

that the public will be less informed about government

activities.

H.R. 1004 also will severely impede, rather than enable,

agency use of new communication technologies, most notably

social media platforms, to reach the public. Regulatory

experts and scholars agree that agencies should be using

social media forums and platforms.

Agencies will find it difficult, if not impossible, to

communicate with the public through social media under H.R.

1004 since the bill prevents any usage of social media that

both conveys information about a regulatory action but also

promotes the importance of that action.

For example, the U.S. Department of Interior operates a

Twitter and Instagram account that is very popular with the

public because it regularly features photos of beautiful

landscapes and wildlife from national parks across the United

States. Under the Regulatory Integrity Act, the Department

might be prohibited from posting such photos on Twitter and

Instagram because they are not solely informational in nature

and could be interpreted as promoting the importance of the

department's work in environmental and wildlife preservation.

Enactment of H.R. 1004 will lead to less transparency in

the government, make it more difficult for agencies to use

new communication technologies popular with the public, and

generally chill agency communications with the public on

important matters due to the lack of any bright-line

standards for agencies to follow.

We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1004, the Regulatory

Integrity Act.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman,

President,

Public Citizen Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful presentation and thank the Chair for his indulgence.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my opposition to this amendment because it is perfectly duplicative, and it does nothing to cure

the very serious deficiencies in the underlying bill. Executive Order 13563, which was issued by President Obama, requires each agency to ``periodically review existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''

Because there is little doubt that this executive order covers the review and elimination of duplicative and overlapping regulatory actions, there is no need for the additional reporting requirements that this amendment would redundantly impose. More importantly, this amendment simply fails to address the profound flaws in the underlying bill. It fails to provide the bright lines for what an agency can communicate to the public safely within the stringent new guidelines. It fails to eliminate the unnecessarily burdensome and onerous requirements in the bill that seem to have no purpose but to reduce the amount of information agencies would be able to release to the public and invite from the public.

The amendment fails to eliminate the prohibition against agencies making public communications that directly advocate for or oppose the submission of public comments or expert analysis of a pending rule. The amendment fails to remove the serious impediments this bill places in the way of agency use of social media platforms. Most importantly, the amendment does nothing to cure the serious chilling effect that the bill would have on agency communications and the negative effects that this imposition would have on the ability of agencies to educate millions of Americans about the costs and benefits of a particular regulation and to invite their input into the rulemaking process.

Because the amendment does nothing to improve the flaws of this bill and is duplicative of work that agencies are already required to do, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to note the remarkable irony of the gentleman making an argument for the reduction of duplicative regulations by adding another duplicative regulation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this redundant and duplicative and, again, chilling amendment will only add more red tape, divert the time of agency officials to produce more paperwork that is unnecessary, and point us right back to the central flaw of the legislation.

My distinguished opponents have mobilized all of one case to demonstrate the necessity of this legislation, and it was a case which was properly resolved by the GAO, and everybody agrees to it. So I understand the urge to get up and say we need more legislation to do what we have already been able to accomplish under existing law, I understand that everybody wants to make a point about the righteousness of legislative change, but sometimes we just don't need another law. The law works as it was. We don't need another law.

And again, I am just impressed by the irony of saying we need another law to eliminate excessive and redundant regulation when the current law already does it. It is almost like a caricature of what we do here in Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, a regime of fear has descended on the Federal workforce, and I have got 88,000 Federal employees in my district.

If they insist on this legislation--unnecessary, redundant, confusing, and chilling--at the very least, we must pass the gentlewoman's amendment to say that it does not trench on the First Amendment rights of our citizens who are simply exercising in a viewpoint-neutral, in a content-neutral way the determination of the agencies to solicit public input.

You say you support on your side the input of the public. You say you support the intent of the amendment. Let's accept the amendment, and let's all embrace the First Amendment together.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair and the managers of the bill, in this instance Mr. Raskin and his collaborator, the Republican manager as well. I thank them for their very thoughtful discussion. I also want to indicate that this regulation does have a perspective of excessiveness on a matter that can be confined to instructions to the agencies that have the responsibility of implementing the laws that we pass here in the United States Congress.

My amendment improves the present underlying bill by making clear that

communication of information statements or claims that are generally accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is not restricted by this bill.

H.R. 1004 directs each Federal agency to make information regarding their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a prominent website. That information would have to include the date a regulation was considered, its current status, an estimate of when the regulation will be final, and a brief description of the regulation. In addition, agencies will be required to track the details of all public communications about pending regulatory actions.

But it further provides that:

``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action,'' among other things, ``may not--be directly or indirectly for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States. . . .''

I want to make sure that if an agency is telling the truth, then that agency is not going to be charged, as was said by Mr. Raskin, using a sledgehammer, that they can't make those communications. Take, for example, someone claiming that global warming is a hoax, but, if you read the facts, you will find out that a landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors attributed climate change to manmade causes. That may be a simple statement made by an agency based on science and empirical study. That should not be prohibited.

The Jackson Lee amendment will protect Federal agency employees who might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, wrongfully terminated or mistreated, or the whole regulation process imploded for statements made even though the statement is externally valid, logical, rooted in fact, or supported by empirical data, although contrary to an administration's political agenda. I want this to be straight up. I want these agency representatives to do what is right, so I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 1004.

The Jackson Lee Amendment improves H.R. 1004 by making clear that Communication of information, statements or claims that are generally accepted by the scientific community or supported by empirical data is not restricted by the bill.

H.R. 1004 directs each federal agency to make information regarding their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a prominent website.

That information would have to include the date a regulation was considered, its current status, an estimate of when the regulation would be final, and a brief description of the regulation.

In addition, agencies would be required to track the details of all public communications about pending regulatory actions.

H.R. 1004 further provides that ``any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action, among other things, may not ``be directly or indirectly used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless otherwise authorized by law.''

Thus, in addition to requiring each federal agency to make information regarding regulatory action publicly available and accessible online, H.R. 1004 places restrictions on the type and quality of communications agencies may make.

This vague phrase--``publicity or propaganda purposes''--creates substantial uncertainty and confusion as to what public communications are permissible, and risks discouraging agencies from keeping the public apprised of the important work they do on its behalf.

The Jackson Lee Amendment will protect federal agency employees who might otherwise be ostracized, marginalized, discriminated against, wrongfully terminated, or mistreated for statements made even though the statement is externally valid, logical, rooted in fact, or supported by empirical data, although contrary to an administration's political agenda.

Under the Jackson Lee Amendment, for example, a communication that human activity is a major contributor to climate change is not propaganda because it is an assertion supported by an overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

On the other hand, a claim that there is `widespread voter fraud' in presidential elections could be considered propaganda, because there is no reliable and statistically significant empirical data to support such a claim.

Federal agencies' ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and transparent way regarding their work on important science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public is a public good that we must nurture and protect.

While propaganda may corrupt information or ideas by an interested party in a tendentious way in order to encourage particular attitudes and responses, information, supported by facts or empirical evidence, on the other hand, does not.

The Jackson Lee Amendment safeguards the legitimacy and transparency of communications issued by federal agencies, ensuring that the information disseminated to the public is accurate and reliable.

I urge my colleagues to preserve the bedrock principles of empirical research, scientific method, and free inquiry that are indispensable to free societies by voting for the Jackson Lee Amendment.

[From cnbc.com, February 17, 2017]

Murray Energy CEO Claims Global Warming Is a Hoax, Says 4,000

Scientists Tell Him So

(By Tom DiChristopher)

Murray Energy Chairman and CEO Robert Murray on Friday

claimed global warming is a hoax and repeated a debunked

claim that the phenomenon cannot exist because the Earth's

surface is cooling.

Murray appeared on CNBC's ``Squawk Box'' to discuss

Republicans' rollback of an Obama-era rule that would have

restricted coal mining near waterways. President Donald Trump

signed the measure on Thursday in front of Murray and a group

of Murray Energy workers.

Murray Energy is the country's largest coal miner. Many of

its mines are in Appalachia, a region that would suffer some

of the biggest impacts of the rule. Murray also successfully

sued to delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which

would regulate planet-warming carbon emissions from power

plants.

Asked about the economic analysis behind President Barack

Obama's energy regulations, Murray said, ``There's no

scientific analysis either. I have 4,000 scientists that tell

me global warming is a hoax. The Earth has cooled for 20

years.''

It was not immediately clear who the 4,000 scientists

Murray referenced are.

Asked for clarification, a spokesperson for Murray Energy

sent links to the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change,

which says ``human-caused climate change is not a global

crisis,'' and the Global Warming Petition Project, a list of

science degree holders who don't think humans cause climate

change.

Murray's claim that there is no scientific analysis behind

climate change is not true.

A landmark 2013 study assessed 4,000 peer-reviewed papers

by 10,000 climate scientists that gave an opinion on the

cause of climate change. It showed 97 percent of the authors

attributed climate change to manmade causes.

His second claim that Earth is cooling is also false.

Temperatures were the warmest on record last year,

according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. It was the third year in a row global average

temperatures set a record.

``The planet's average surface temperature has risen about

2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late

19th century,' a change driven largely by increased carbon

dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,''

NASA and NOAA said.

Climate change skeptics sometimes point to cool land

temperatures to dispute global warming. Scientists have

repeatedly noted that water covers 70 percent of the Earth's

surface, so it is highly misleading to cast temperatures on

land as a representation of global-scale temperatures.

Land also heats and cools more quickly than the ocean, The

Weather Channel noted while debunking a recent Breitbart News

article that was widely found to have cherry-picked data to

cast doubt on climate change.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that my good friend from Texas loves his wife. I would also suggest to him that there might be a number of individuals who are experts that would be able to confirm that, certainly those who are around him, and they might be able to say that that is not propaganda or publicity, and, therefore, his statement stands.

But when you are talking about thousands upon thousands of executive agency staff, servants of the United States Government wanting to do what is right, and you come down with this massive, oppressive document that says here is what you have to do, but don't do propaganda and don't do publicity, there should be a determination or a standard that says if it is based in fact, you have no problem, that is information that you can disseminate in order to edify those who may be wanting to comment by edifying the particular regulatory scheme or structure that you are putting forward for comment.

Why should my friends on the other side be afraid of good, strong information to make the input valuable so that if I am dealing with a clean air regulation that I am able to hear from those who are for and against, but I can provide documentation, scientific documentation about the quality of air pollution, why this regulatory scheme is appropriate. I ask my colleagues, again, to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

How much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that what we are suggesting is that propaganda can be confusing. I want truth and honesty, and I want our agencies to be able to reach out and to help the American people. Therefore, my amendment says that if by chance they say something but it has facts or empirical evidence, it is not propaganda, it is not publicity, they can go forward and protect our water, they can protect our health, they can protect our air. Why are we hiding on this floor?

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. It only makes this bill more refined as to how we can help the American people pass a regulatory scheme that enhances local communities and cities. That is why we need the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, with all good intentions of the underlying bill, the Regulatory Integrity Act

of 2017, which has a very distinguished name, I am really concerned, and my colleague should be concerned, of the chilling effect of this particular legislation. Let me tell you what the problem is.

My good friend from Texas Mr. Farenthold, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and Professor Raskin will not be bending over the shoulder of some hardworking public servant for the Federal Government trying to interpret what this new law means. Can I speak? Can I send information out? What a chilling effect. What a First Amendment violation this legislation might entail.

Take, for example, Chairman Pai of the FCC. He decided to publish the full text of proposals and regulations that the public would otherwise never see until after they had been finalized and approved. Suppose he was then charged with a violation of this bill? Chilling effect, undermining the public's ability to even understand what a very important agency such as the FCC is doing.

My amendment simply states that nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For those of us who love the Constitution, that is the First Amendment, and it is a simple, simple statement. Your freedom of speech is protected because it enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, makes decisions, and communicates those decisions to the government.

Let me recite a 1927 case from Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California. There is a joy in reading it because he wrote and said: ``Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''

The Framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice Brandeis: ``that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate.''

The question is: Some worker who is responsible for this, what will they think?

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that indicates the First Amendment will not be chilled.

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order.

I also wish to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings for their work in bringing the legislation before us to the floor.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain this Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 1004.

The Jackson Lee Amendment is simple and straightforward.

It simply states that ``nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.''

The amendment is necessary because not only does H.R. 1004 direct that certain information be made publicly available by agencies regarding their regulatory actions, the legislation also imposes restrictions on the type and quality of communications that can be made by agencies and agency personnel.

Mr. Chair, it is useful to explain briefly why the First Amendment's protection of speech is central to the effective functioning of the American political system.

Freedom of speech and a vibrant and robust democracy are inextricably intertwined.

Freedom of speech enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions to the government.

The First Amendment also provides American people with a ``marketplace of ideas.''

Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth, freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions.

In Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that ``freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.''

Free speech facilitates democratic governance because it is only through talking that we encourage consensus and form a collective will.

Over the long run, free speech improves our public decision-making because just as we Americans generally believe in free markets in economic matters, we also generally believe in free markets when it comes to ideas, and this includes governmental affairs.

Freedom of speech strengthens public confidence in the American governmental system of checks and balances.

Speech is thus a means of empowering people, through which they learn, grow, and share; correct errors; and remedy violations of the public trust.

Mr. Chair, the framers of the Constitution knew, to quote Justice Brandeis again in Whitney v. California:

that order cannot be secured merely through fear of

punishment for its infraction;

that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and

imagination;

that fear breeds repression;

that repression breeds hate;

that hate menaces stable government[.]

Free societies like the United States accept that openness fosters resiliency and that free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.

Not only does freedom of speech serve the ends of democracy, it is also an indelible part of human personality and human dignity.

In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 case Procunier v. Martinez:

The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity

but also those of the human spirit--a spirit that demands

self-expression.

Freedom of speech is intimately connected to the human desire to think, imagine, create, wonder, inquire, and believe.

While freedom of speech is not unlimited, the American tradition is to view such limits with caution and skepticism and to embrace freedom of speech as a transcendent constitutional value.

In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Justice Douglas reminded us that:

effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people

are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored

flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously

subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination.

In other words, Mr. Chair, freedom of speech is fundamental to the American identity and psyche.

And that is why I have proposed the Jackson Lee Amendment to ensure that nothing in H.R. 1004 shall be interpreted to prohibit any communication that is protected under the precious First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Well, let me say this.

Mr. Chair, first of all, before I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland, the reason why we need my amendment is because this deals with speech. This regulatory bill deals with speech, what you can say and what you cannot say.

So this is not a reflection that we need this in every legislative initiative. I would love for it to be there. But this is a bill that deals with what our agencies can say. And if the Chairman of the FCC put out all of these proposals specifically so that the public could see, just think if this bill unclarified what the protection of the First Amendment reiterated, his speech would be chilled.

I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

Mr. Chair, let me indicate that the gentleman just argued my point. Clarity is what we need. My amendment provides clarity.

Again, what does this bill do? This bill tells Federal employees about their speech: what level of speech, containing speech, how much speech, what they can say, what is propaganda, what is publicity. Therefore, I think it is important to avoid the chilling effect on public servants who are doing the task on behalf of the American people.

Being the American people's defendant, I believe that we should, in fact, have this language. In Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Douglas reminded us that an effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique, rebuttal, and reexamination. That is the protection of the First Amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me reemphasize: Clarity in the First Amendment cannot be a bad thing. This bill kills speech. Let's clarify that that speech is protected by the First Amendment to not chill the hard work of our hardworking Federal employees trying to provide for the safety and security of the American people.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill. My colleagues on the other side have portrayed this bill as simply a codification of an executive order President Clinton issued. That simply is not the case. This bill makes significant changes to the regulatory process. The bill would require independent agencies to submit rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, for review. Independent agencies do not currently have to get the approval of the White House for regulations they issue. Congress designed independent agencies to be just that, independent. This bill would change that.

In February of 2015, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz sent four letters to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission alleging that the White House had ``an improper influence'' on the FCC's net neutrality plan and that the FCC ``failed to establish the appearance that this rulemaking is independent, fair, and transparent.''

The bill we are considering would enshrine in law that very allegation my esteemed colleague Chairman

Chaffetz had concerns about, political interference by the White House with the FCC and other independent agencies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would increase direct spending by $3 million and reduce revenues by $2 million. These direct spending and revenue effects are caused by the fact that the bill covers independent agencies. CBO has also estimated that the bill would cost Federal agencies an additional $20 million in administrative costs. Imagine. I am fighting to keep the budget down in this matter.

The bill does not include offsets for any additional spending. The bill also omits critical phrases from Executive Order 12866 that ensures that OIRA reviews do not contradict existing law. For example, the executive order requires agencies to provide the cost and benefits of alternatives to a proposed rule ``unless prohibited by law.'' The bill does not include this exception, and my colleagues on the other side have still not explained why it does not include this language.

It is unclear how the bill would impact laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when setting public health standards.

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an alliance over 150 labor, scientific, good government, health, and environmental groups--sent a letter to the House Members yesterday opposing this bill. That letter said in part:

``Particularly concerning, H.R. 1009 would in effect rewrite dozens of public interest laws containing congressional mandates that require agencies to prioritize public health and safety and the preservation of the environment, clean air, and clean water over concerns for industry profits. This consequence flows from another key difference between H.R. 1009 and the Executive Orders it purports codify: Whereas the Orders impose their requirements only to the extent consistent with applicable laws, H.R. 1009 recognizes no such limitations.''

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also give OIRA the ability to hold up rulemaking indefinitely.

Under Executive Order 12866, the administrator over OIRA has 90 days to review a rule, and that period can be extended one time for 30 days. This bill would allow OIRA to extend its review ``for any number of additional 30-day periods upon written request by the administrator or the head of the agency.''

The bill also gives the rulemaking agencies the ability to object to an extension of OIRA review period, but it is not realistic to think that an agency would refuse a request for an extension from the White House.

The Union of Concerned Scientists also sent a letter to House Members opposing this bill. That letter said:

Of particular concern is the fact that H.R. 1009 aims to

codify some of the most burdensome requirements of previous

executive orders while gutting the much-needed flexibility

that the orders provide to Federal agencies in charge of

ensuring science-based protections for the public. Congress

should increase protections for our constituents rather than

preventing agencies from issuing science-based protections.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

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

We are opposed to the bill because we have received letters and concerns from a cross section of Americans, a cross section of organizations, who recognize that this is not really a codification of an executive order, but this is overreach on the part of the majority of Congress at this time. They feel that they are able to do it, and so they are going to ram this through.

H.R. 1009 would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already slow rulemaking process. The Consumer Federation of America says:

The bill creates a regulatory working group to provide

input to agencies about how to improve their regulatory

process, including an evaluation of risk assessment

techniques.

It appears like this is what we are going to be doing throughout Oversight and Government Reform, is creating new task forces and new groups to review rulemaking and review regulations at the cost of the taxpayer.

H.R. 1009 would jeopardize the independence of agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, as well as other independent agencies because it will give the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, the ability to

review significant rules which are outside of their scope now. That is why these agencies are called independent, because Congress wanted them to be independent. We are now giving OIRA overreach into independent agencies.

The Consumer Federation of America goes on to say:

Authorizing OIRA to conduct its own analysis would not only

add pressure from the executive branch and add time and

expense to the already slow regulatory process, but would

also give the special interests seeking to quash a safety

measure yet another avenue to prevent a rule from being

promulgated.

Significantly, independent agencies were created by Congress to prioritize public health and safety, ensure a fair financial marketplace, and consumer privacy. This bill would undermine the authorizing statutes and the missions of these independent agencies by allowing those agencies to be in some way touched by the White House.

Again, we have the Natural Resources Defense Council. Their letter to all of the Members said:

The bill would also revive legislative language that

Congress repealed elsewhere because it made it impossible to

protect the public.

Specifically, in H.R. 1009, OIRA was charged with ensuring that the regulation imposes the least burden on society. Congress removed such language when it updated TSCA because the phrase had made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster, even when the chemical was asbestos, well known to be a potential carcinogen.

No one wants to impose unnecessary burdens on society, but the phrase ``least burdensome'' has been interpreted to put an agency in an impossible position of providing that there is no other conceivable way to accomplish its goal of having to cost out every theoretical option.

The reason we are opposed to this bill is because it makes it more difficult for independent agencies to remain independent and not be moved by the White House by political machinations that this Congress is now trying to impose on them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chair, we would say that this bill is not necessarily about transparency so much as it is about the executive branch, and specifically the White House, being able to reach into these independent agencies. There are already mechanisms in place for the transparency that my colleague is speaking about. What we are doing now is creating another level of oversight over the committees, over these independent agencies, so that this Congress can then have reach into them as well.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

There are many organizations that oppose this bill, including consumer protection groups such as The Center for Popular Democracy's Fed Up Coalition. The Fed Up Coalition sent a letter to House Members today that said:

The Fed Up Coalition exists to ensure that policymaking at

the Federal Reserve reflects the concerns of working families

and communities of color. By encroaching on the Fed's ability

to pursue sound regulation and extending the hand of the

executive branch in the Federal Reserve decisionmaking, H.R.

1009 undermines the Feds's ability to keep our financial

system safe and protect working families and taxpayers that

our coalition represents.

I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1009, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment does not fix the flaws in the bill we are considering.

One of the major flaws in the bill is the authority it gives to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to hold up rules indefinitely. This amendment attempts to address that concern by requiring that any extension be agreed to by both the White House and the agency issuing the rule.

It is just not realistic to believe that an agency whose top official is appointed by the President would tell the White House it cannot have an extension if the White House asks. This amendment also does nothing to address the concern that the bill could interfere with other laws.

The Natural Resources Defense Council sent a letter to House Members opposing H.R. 1009. That letter states:

``The bill would also revive legislative language that Congress repealed elsewhere because it made it impossible to protect the public. Specifically, in H.R. 1009, OIRA is charged with ensuring that a regulation imposes the least burden on society. Congress removed such language when it updated the Toxic Substances Control Act because the phase had made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster, even when the chemical was asbestos, well known to be a potent carcinogen.''

This amendment also includes language that says that no funds shall be authorized to carry out the bill. This does not change the fact that the CBO estimates that the bill will result in $3 million in direct spending. That is money that Congress has not appropriated that independent agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have to spend.

CBO also estimates that the bill would change the operations of the Federal Reserve, which would result in $2 million in reduced revenues.

CBO also estimates that agencies would have to spend $4 million in appropriated funds each year to comply with the requirements of this bill. Making agencies comply with additional requirements without giving them more money means that agencies will have to choose between which requirements they comply with and which they ignore.

I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am just so grateful that my colleague is interested in making investments, monetary investments, with taxpayers' dollars. I will be looking to him and his other cosponsors and supporters when we are looking for investing in working class Americans and working people and protecting health care and other benefits when we have the budget discussions.

I have no further statements at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require agencies to report on their efforts to coordinate with State, local, and tribal governments throughout the regulatory process. I agree that it is important that State, local, and tribal governments are properly included in the regulatory process. The amendment, however, simply adds new requirements without addressing the flaws in the underlying bill.

The amendment fails to address the fact that this bill does not exclude independent agencies from its coverage. Congress designed independent agencies to be just that, independent.

The amendment fails to include an offset for the additional $20 million in administrative costs that this bill will likely cost Federal agencies.

The amendment also fails to insert a provision into the bill to ensure that OIRA reviews do not contradict existing laws. The amendment also fails to mandate a specific timeframe within which OIRA must complete its review.

The amendment simply does nothing to improve the numerous deficiencies in this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this amendment because it is duplicative of requirements already in place and will waste limited agency resources through additional burdensome requirements.

On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563 requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing rules. Section 6 of that executive order requires each agency to ``periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.''

There can be no real doubt that this executive order covers the review and elimination of duplicative and conflicting regulatory actions. Frankly, the elimination of regulations that are duplicative or conflicting is one of the most efficient actions an agency can take to make its regulatory program more effective and less burdensome.

Forcing agencies to spend time and resources to describe what they are already doing is wasteful and unduly burdensome. Agencies already keep the public apprised of their regulatory activities through the easily-accessible websites reginfo.gov and regulations.gov, both of which are managed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Through these websites, the public can search for rules, comments, adjudications, and supporting documents. The public can also access each agency's unified agenda, which contains the regulatory agenda for each agency.

The public can also access a list of pending agency rules. Each of these rules has easily accessible links that can allow the public to obtain further information about the rule, including its status and Executive Order 12866 meetings about the rule.

This amendment does nothing to improve the deficiencies in H.R. 1009, and will force agencies to waste their time and limited resources on work that is already being done. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and it is unfortunate because we believe that this amendment, on its own, is something that would draw bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this amendment is attached to H.R. 1009, because the amendment would make the role of OIRA in the rulemaking process more transparent.

The Government Accountability Office has consistently found that OIRA is not transparent about its involvement in shaping rules. The GAO testified to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in March of 2016, that it has made 25 recommendations to OMB to improve its process, but OMB has only implemented six of those recommendations.

This amendment would be a step in the right direction. And as usual, my colleague, the esteemed gentleman from North Carolina, always comes up with rational, well-reasoned amendments and ideas that can be supported across the aisle; and for that, you know, we believe and we are hopeful that Mr. Meadows will work with the committee on a bipartisan basis to pursue these types of productive transparency reforms.

It, unfortunately, does not fix the problems with the underlying bill and is rather packaged with a partisan bill the House is considering today. For this reason, I am in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the esteemed gentleman of North Carolina is willing to work with me means that it has been a wonderful day for me, and I am just so glad because I understand, although I don't always agree with everything that he says, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina's heart is in the right place; that he is working towards resolutions of issues; that he is principled in his beliefs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the esteemed gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. However, like the manager's amendment, it does nothing to improve the bill. This amendment, in fact, really does not move the needle at all.

Agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, are required to preserve records according to the records schedules under the Federal Records Act and regulations issued by the National Archives and Records Administration.

This amendment says that OIRA must do what it is already required to do. This amendment provides a platform to express frustration with OIRA's response to a subpoena issued by the chairman during the Obama administration, as demonstrated by his statements just a few moments ago.

I look forward to him expressing the same outrage if the current administration does not provide documents that the Members on this side of the aisle, the Democratic members of the committee, request.

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement of Administration Policy

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

Burdensome (SCRUB) Act

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

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

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

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

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

The Administration is committed to reducing regulatory

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

signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs, which provides for repeal of

two regulations for every new one issued. This historic step

accelerates the retrospective review process to make common-

sense reforms to regulations across the Federal Government.

Legislation is helpful where it amends agencies' regulatory

processes to ensure they are transparent, and appropriately

balance costs and benefits.

Each of these bills would address different aspects of the

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

numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary

regulations that have accumulated throughout government. The

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

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

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

1009, would codify specific executive branch regulatory

review procedures.

The Administration supports the SCRUB Act, the Regulatory

Integrity Act, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and

Accountability Act. The Administration looks forward to

working with the Congress on technical and other amendments

to these bills.

The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Congress

to rationalize the regulatory system and looks forward to

continuing to work together to reform the regulatory process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1009.

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

We are here to consider H.R. 1009. This is a bill sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell). It is cosponsored on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer). We are also pleased to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) as cosponsors.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act. OIRA stands for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It has many responsibilities. It is a little known agency, but very powerful and very important. Some of its most well-known responsibilities are governed by an executive order. Executive Order 12866 was issued by President Clinton in 1993. The order was maintained under President Bush and reaffirmed by President Obama in 2009.

The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act puts into statute the basic structure that has existed for more than two decades. The legislation also includes some minor adjustments for increased transparency and accountability. For example, agencies are required to provide OIRA with a redline of any changes the agency chooses to make during the review process. This allows the public to better understand how centralized review can improve the quality of rulemaking.

The bill clarifies the process for extending the time for OIRA to review regulations. Currently, OIRA has 90 days to review a regulation, but at the

request of the issuing agency, OIRA can extend the review indefinitely without notice to the public. Under the Obama administration, many rules were under review for more than a year with no explanation whatsoever. H.R. 1009 requires OIRA and the regulating agency to agree upon the extension and provide a written explanation to the public, including an estimated date of completion.

The government works for the people. You would think if they are going to miss deadlines and be late and go beyond the current rules, the people who are involved in the rulemaking would at least offer a little bit of a written explanation. The bill also requires OIRA to update the explanation and estimated completion date every 30 days after that moving forward.

Another significant difference from the executive order is H.R. 1009 includes independent agencies in OIRA's review of significant regulations. Independent regulatory agencies already submit their regulations to OIRA for the unified agenda and the annual regulatory plans. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, independent agencies submit information collection requests, which is another way to say government forms, to OIRA for approval. For decades, experts across the political spectrum, including the Administrative Conference of the United States and the American Bar Association, have called for the inclusion of independent agencies in the significant regulation review process. Again, a good group there, the Administrative Conference of the United States, as well as the American Bar Association also asking for these independent agencies.

There is significant bipartisan agreement on including the independent agencies. In fact, President Obama's Jobs Council recommended including independent agencies in OIRA's regulatory review. Sally Katzen, OIRA administrator under President Clinton, said: ``For all practical purposes, the way executive branch agencies and independent agencies conduct rulemaking is the same, so they both should be expected to gather and use information on the costs and benefits of new regulatory proposals.'' She went on to suggest: ``Congress could adapt that approach for OIRA review of the analysis underlying independent agency rulemakings.'' And she goes on.

That is exactly what the bill does, which brings me to the last major difference between this bill and the executive order. This bill requires OIRA to report on what it reviewed and the results of that review. The Oversight Committee conducted an extensive investigation into the Waters of the United States rulemaking, also known as WOTUS. During the course of the investigation, it was clear OIRA was not conducting the analysis I think we should all expect. OIRA even shortchanged the interagency review process in order to meet the self- imposed arbitrary deadline.

H.R. 1009 requires OIRA to issue a report on each significant regulation it reviews so the public can see exactly what legal requirements OIRA focused on and what OIRA found. H.R. 1009 asks OIRA to consider: Did the agency technically comply with the requirement? Did it make solid effort to improve the regulation through the process? Or was the agency just going through the motions? These are very legitimate, easy, simple questions that we think can be answered.

Agencies are supposed to consider the public's comments, but what if the final rule is drafted before the comments are even reviewed? Perhaps the law does not explicitly prohibit that, but is it really an effective regulatory practice? The question is more than just whether agencies have simply complied. It is whether the agency is doing everything it can to limit the burden and make its regulations effective and easy to understand.

By requiring OIRA to make the results of its review of rulemakings available to the public, this bill will encourage agency accountability and improve the public's understanding of the rulemaking process. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved this bill, without amendment, on February 14 of this year.

I again want to thank the leadership of Congressman Mitchell for doing all that he has done to bring us to this point where we are debating this on the floor of the House. I also want to thank Katy Rother for her tireless work on this bill. She has done an awful lot of work, working with both sides of the aisle. Hats off to her as well. Again, I urge the passage of this bill.

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

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2017.

Hon. Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1009, the OIRA

Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew

Pickford.

Sincerely,

Keith Hall.

Enclosure.

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

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform on February 14, 2017

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Let me mention that the bill does not require any of these agencies to provide new analysis. And I haven't really heard an example or a reason why something would be prohibited in an agency from sharing existing cost-benefit analysis.

What could the agencies have that they should not share with OIRA?

It just seems reasonable that if they have this information, they should share it. Ultimately, we do work for the American people, and the American people should be able to see this information as it goes to OIRA.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just point out that these independent agencies need oversight as much as any other agency; and, ultimately, what we are trying to do is provide more transparency, more information to the public. Whether or not they think they are independent or not, they still work for the American people, and the people that are footing the bills and that have to live under these regulations should have the right to see this information and have this information provided to them through the process.

We are never going to apologize for trying to increase the transparency and the process. That is what this bill does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to simply point out that the bill does extend OIRA to review independent agencies. I also would point out, as I did earlier, the Administrative Conference of the United States recommended OIRA review be extended to independent agencies back in 1988.

In fact, the American Bar Association recommended OIRA review be extended to independent agencies in 1990 and reaffirmed the need again in 2016. They said: ``We strongly urge you to bring the independent regulatory commissions within the requirements for cost-benefit analysis''--I am going to just inject my own words here in the middle.

Cost-benefit analysis, isn't that something reasonable that we should all look at? That is not asking an agency too much, especially if they already have the information.

They went on to say: ``OMB review, and retrospective review of rules currently reflected in Executive Order 12866. . . . `'

Those are not overly burdensome requests. In fact, in 2011, Sally Katzen, the OIRA Administrator under President Clinton, urged Congress to support extending OIRA review to independent agencies, when she wrote: ``Our concern is that independent agencies are not typically engaging in the analysis that has come to be expected as a form of governmental best practice for regulatory agencies.''

It seems like a reasonable expectation to employ best practices. And all that bill does is--again, it does not interfere with independent agencies' rulemaking process or their policy decision. It simply requires OIRA to review the regulations to ensure these agencies are complying with legal requirements just the same as any other agency.

That is a reasonable request. That is why we urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires OIRA to maintain records on each significant regulatory action reviewed such that it is easily accessible and transferrable when responding to congressional requests.

Unfortunately, in the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, the committee asked for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA--asked Administrator Shelanski for records relating to the review of the Waters of the United States, often known as WOTUS, and that rulemaking process. The administrator repeatedly failed to take the requests seriously, which led me, as the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to issue a subpoena in July of 2015.

Even upon issuance of a subpoena, OIRA resisted responding to the request, blowing past deadlines and being totally nonresponsive. We held multiple hearings. We conducted transcribed interviews. We had lengthy staff-to-staff conversations, but still OIRA did not seem to take the request seriously. I don't know how much money they wasted in time and effort to slow this process down and resist our being able to get the information that they said they had in order to make this decision.

It was not until the committee, myself, as the chairman, getting on the phone with the head of OMB, when I told him that I had every intention to hold Mr. Shelanski in contempt and issue a contempt report, that we actually received a full set of documents. This was well past a year since the initial request. You should not have to go through those gyrations whatsoever.

I will think the resistance was largely a political maneuvering--this is my own opinion--by the administration that did not want us to see how rushed, incomplete, and politically involved this regulatory review was. That is my own personal opinion.

But for those who are here and the future generations, it seems reasonable that they have to have their act in order if they are actually going to issue a rule. And if Congress asks for the underlying information, as Representatives of the people, that should be easily transferrable to Congress upon request.

That is what this amendment does. This is why it should pass, and that is what this amendment is intended to do.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate working with my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We disagree on many things, but we have good debates, and I do appreciate the spirit in which Mr. Connolly brings this amendment forward. I enjoy working with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), and certainly our ranking member, Mr. Cummings.

I try to accept and work with the minority on all things, but certainly amendments that they would like to see move forward. Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose this one. I am trying to maximize transparency.

I think what Mr. Mitchell is bringing forward in this bill is the right policy in opening up this transparency.

I see this going in the wrong direction. It would remove existing requirements for agencies, such as the EPA or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to give notice about upcoming regulations. It removes existing requirements, for instance, for the EPA to submit its rules to OIRA for review.

In a March 2015 hearing, in fact, it was Mr. Connolly of Virginia who said: ``OIRA boasts an incredibly hardworking, and dedicated corps of career staff that is first-rate when it comes to conducting quantitative analysis that weighs complex economic costs against potential benefits.''

I happen to agree with Mr. Connolly. I think there are good, hardworking, and dedicated people who are committed to this country, and they work hard. That is why I think this hardworking, dedicated corps of people who work as career staff should offer first-rate, as we call it, analysis for all regulations, not just some of them. Let's do it for all of them. I think that is fair.

We want to know that the regulations will be effective in achieving their goals. We have to always keep sight, Mr. Chairman, that all of us in the Federal Government work for the American people. They pay the bills and they have to live under these regulations. We should maximize that transparency, whether they are, quote, unquote, independent or part of the executive agency.

If you are affected by a rule, you are affected by a rule, and people who are affected by those have every right to see what helped create that. So I don't think there should be an exemption that is carved out under this bill, and that is why I stand in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment. I think it takes us in the wrong direction. We need to maximize transparency, and this will help us achieve that.

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