Floor Statements

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. CHAFFETZ: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

H.R. 624. A bill to restrict the inclusion of social security

account numbers on documents sent by mail by the Federal

Government, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept.

115-50, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

for a period ending not later than May 23, 2017, for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as

fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to

clause 1(t) of rule X.

Mr. Chair, I really appreciate what Chairman Roe of Tennessee is doing. He pours his heart and soul into one of the most important issues and things we can deal with here in Congress and, that is, helping our veterans.

Veterans step up and serve in our military. I stand in awe. They do the heavy lifting. They run through the fire. They engage. Then they come home, and we have got to do a better job of taking care of those people who take care of us.

The Veterans Administration, just like the rest of Federal Government, has a lot of good people who actually work there, do care, and have big hearts. With a government of more than 2 million people, every once in a while you come across some bad apples. They may be a poor performer, or they may just have their heart in a different place, and we have got to deal with these bad apples.

While you have a whole set of people who are actually trying to do the right thing, you are going to run into some people every once in a while who aren't doing the right thing, and you have to be able to dismiss them.

Now, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction on the Federal civilian workforce, and we have worked closely with Chairman Roe of Tennessee to help make this possible.

Through the last couple of years that I have been chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we have heard a number of accounts where Federal employees couldn't be disciplined fast enough. It was obvious what they had done, but they had run into roadblocks in being able to dismiss people.

We heard horror stories from the Environmental Protection Agency where there was a sexually harassed intern that lasted for 3 years. It took 5 weeks to process the harasser's removal proceedings.

We heard the Government Accountability Office come and testify before our committee that it can take 6 months to a year to remove a Federal employee for poor performance. You know what? That isn't good enough. When you have a bad apple and somebody is misusing the system and they are not performing, they are hurting our veterans. And when they are hurting our veterans, I take that personally. Everybody should take that personally. Nobody wants to see that happen.

So this bill, H.R. 1259, is a very important bill to accelerate that process. Again, let's remember that most of the people who work there are good, hardworking, patriotic people who care. But when you do have a bad apple and you do need to get rid of that person, we have to have an expedited removal proceeding.

I know this bill does a number of things, but I can tell you, having heard testimony time and time and time again in a variety of Federal agencies, especially the VA, this is a much-needed bill.

We are going to work as a committee to implement reforms like this governmentwide. To put the Veterans Administration first and deal with this first, I think, is the right priority of this Congress.

Again, hats off to Chairman Roe of Tennessee and the committee as a whole for addressing this so aggressively and so early in the 115th Congress.

I urge passage of H.R. 1259.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, certainly, Dr. Wenstrup, for bringing forward this bill, and also the ranking member here for good bipartisan work.

1978 was a good year. I was playing soccer at the AYSO as a young, 11-year-old kid. It was also a good year because that was the last time the civil service had a total revamp of its system. It has been that long since civil service has had this type of reform, and we are looking, on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to take what is being done here in a good, bipartisan way, and try to institute some of these good best practices into the broader Federal Government.

The current hiring process is far too long and far too complex. We want to ensure the Federal Government remains a competitive employment option. We also want to make sure, particularly at the VA, that the department has the necessary data to make smart hiring decisions and ensure important positions are filled.

This bill will allow technical experts to earn promotions without having to necessarily go into the management track, which is very important. For some of the skill sets, you don't have to be in management if you are providing a skill that is so imperative to making sure we take care of our veterans.

The bill also allows for a fast-tracked reemployment of former VA employees who have a proven record of success at the agency. We get some people trained up, maybe they go and do something else, we ought to give the people priorities in coming back as well, to make sure that we have the most qualified Federal workers who are taking care of the people who have taken care of us. They did the heavy lifting for this country, and they deserve better, and we can do better by them. A big part of that would be passing this bill, H.R. 1367.

So, again, I want to thank Mr. Wenstrup for his leadership. I am glad this is moving forward, and I stand in support of the bill.

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. 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.

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. 998.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 998, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act, also known as the SCRUB Act, was introduced by our colleague Jason Smith. I happen to be a cosponsor of this bill, as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. We rise in support of this bill, the SCRUB Act.

Regulatory accumulation is a significant problem for the Federal Government. Year after year, Federal agencies add regulation after regulation, piling on to an already very complex and crowded regulatory system. The Code of Federal Regulations, also known as the CFR, has some 178,000 pages. These are the regulations that you are supposed to understand if you are in a business--small business, big business, medium-sized business. It contains more than 1 million regulatory restrictions. Every year the Federal Government adds, on average, nearly 12,000 new regulations on top of those.

The regulatory accumulation has considerable impact upon our economy. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, regulatory compliance hurts economic growth by pulling nearly $1.8 trillion out of the economy. Regulations are particularly hard on small businesses that don't have the legal resources and the wherewithal to understand all of the complexities. Many small- and medium-sized businesses will be doing things that they don't necessarily even know or understand could be problematic.

There is room for regulation, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting there should be no regulation, but we are trying to clean up some of this regulation and weed out the good from the bad. The SCRUB Act will enable the government to do so, and that is why I appreciate our colleague Jason Smith for championing and bringing this bill to the floor again.

The SCRUB Act establishes a bipartisan--and I can't say that enough, a bipartisan--Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of Federal regulation. The commission's goal is to reduce regulatory costs to the economy by at least 15 percent.

The act charges the commission with identifying outdated, obsolete, and unnecessary regulations in need of repeal or amendment. The commission gives priority to those regulations that are 15 years old and older. I think that is an appropriate direction that they should go.

The commission will consist of regulatory experts chosen on a bipartisan basis and confirmed by the United States Senate. They will take a governmentwide look at the regulatory system, allowing for impartial and wide-ranging review of outdated and unnecessary regulations.

This is not a new or a partisan concept. In fact, in 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order requiring agencies to ``periodically review their existing regulations to determine whether they are achieving the policy goals.'' In addition, every President since has required some level of retrospective regulatory self-review by those agencies themselves. In fact, it was President Obama who issued three executive orders on regulatory review. He required agencies to develop retrospective review plans and to set priorities for implementing that review.

The commission is tasked with identifying regulations that ought to be repealed or amended. The commission will use commonsense criteria to determine whether regulations are overlaps, duplicates, or just flat- out conflicts with existing regulations. After expedited congressional approval, agencies are required to repeal some regulations based on the commission's recommendations. So you have people who are selected, they are Senate confirmed, then they bring forward a package that is allowed to be viewed by Congress.

Some have said, well, you know, this is excusing Congress from its duties. Quite to the contrary. The committees, Members, everybody should be paying attention to this, but to have a bipartisan group go out and look and make a recommendation, then it is up to Congress whether or not to accept it. We need to go through the House, the Senate, and be signed on by the President in a bipartisan way because there

will be Members from both sides of the aisle who will be able to appoint members.

Other regulations would be subject to innovative, regulatory CutGo procedures. The CutGo process gives agencies flexibility on how to prioritize regulatory elimination. It allows agencies to choose which regulations to repeal or amend and at what time. However, new regulations may not be promulgated until equally costly regulations are repealed.

The SCRUB Act gives agencies the direction and momentum needed to implement the regulatory reform our economy needs. We all know that regulations can improve health and safety; but sometimes, with the best intention, these outdated and excessive regulations hurt our economy and put other people in jeopardy. The accumulation over decades is something that should just simply be reviewed. I think it is pretty hard to argue that a review process is unwarranted or unneeded, given the amazing and impactful status that it puts upon those things that are damaging our economy.

I again want to thank Jason Smith for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte and the Judiciary staff for their dedicated work on this, as well as Chairman Pete Sessions for his good work on this. A lot of good people have worked on this. I do support it.

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

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, February 16, 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 14, 2017, the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without

amendment H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting

Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017''

(SCRUB Act) by a vote of 22 to 17. The bill was referred

primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform, with an additional referral to the Committee on the

Judiciary.

I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it

may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no

way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any

response in the bill report filed by the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration, to

memorialize our understanding.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 74, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 37.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution.

During the past 8 years, the number of newly issued regulations and the costs of those regulations have surged. By the prior administration's own estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over the last 10 years alone have imposed a cost of more than $100 billion annually on American taxpayers.

H.J. Res. 37, which we are considering today under the Congressional Review Act procedures, represents an important step toward rolling back this tsunami of rules. Once a CRA resolution of disapproval for a rule is enacted, agencies cannot reissue the rule or any substantially similar rules in the future.

H.J. Res. 37 revokes the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, otherwise known as the blacklisting rule.

I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx for her leadership on this resolution of

disapproval. I also want to recognize my fellow original cosponsors, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Mitchell, for their leadership on this issue as well.

I want to highlight the impact of this rule on the Federal acquisition system as well as contractors. This rule requires Federal contractors to report violations and alleged violations of 14 Federal labor laws and undefined equivalent State labor laws for the previous 3 years. Contractors must collect and report this information every time they submit a proposal for a contract and then every 6 months during the contract performance. Then Federal contract officers consult with their agency's newly created agency labor compliance adviser before determining if a contractor is eligible for a contract award.

There are a number of reasons this rule should be revoked. The Federal acquisition system is already a very complex, inefficient system. This contractor blacklisting rule is exactly the type of requirement an already complex Federal acquisition system does not need. The rule adds another contractor clause to an increasingly long list of clauses in every Federal contract. It slows down a process that already has trouble delivering goods and services in a timely manner. It increases the burden on Federal contract officers who have to review and assess the significant volume of information and take on the role of labor law experts.

The rule imposes significant costs on contractors, which means the government, which ultimately means the taxpayers. The rule itself is estimated to cost contractors and subcontractors more than $458 million in the first year and $413 million in the second year of its implementation. Some experts believe the government underestimated these costs.

The cost to establish a new information collection, reporting, and assessment system to comply with the rule would be prohibitively expensive for most contractors, especially the small contractors. Mr. Speaker, this is where the rubber meets the road. It is these small contractors.

In fiscal year 2016, the Federal Government spent more than $470 billion contracting for goods and services. We need to be looking for ways to reduce, not increase, spending in this area.

The rule discourages competition and reduces access to innovation. The last thing we need to do for the Federal acquisition system is to discourage competition and innovation, particularly for first time participants who want to join the Federal marketplace. There are already so many barriers to entry, particularly for these small businesses. So think about the small business at home. They want to compete for these Federal contractors. They may be a very small organization.

Even after we pass the resolution of disapproval, there are still rules, there are still laws, and there are still a lot of burdens that they have to deal with. But I want to cite some Bloomberg data about the number of first time Federal vendors. We have fallen to a 10-year low--down 24 percent in 2007 to only 13 percent in 2016.

What that means is the big are probably getting bigger, but the small guy, the mom, the pop, and the woman who is starting a new business and wants to compete for these Federal contracts don't have a fighting chance. For the Federal Government to put more burdens on there, especially things that haven't been substantiated, is just not fair, and it is just not right.

The rule duplicates existing labor enforcement mechanisms to hold contractors accountable and, therefore, I believe, is not necessary.

Revoking this rule will not leave Federal contractors free to violate labor laws. To the contrary, the Department of Labor has significant oversight and investigation resources to enforce the Federal labor law.

Further, if there is a bad-apple contractor not complying with the law, contract officers already have the authority to refer contractors for suspension and disbarment.

This rule raises due process and First Amendment concerns. One of the most disturbing parts of the rule is that contractors would be required to report alleged violations--not confirmed--just the alleged violations of the 14 Federal labor laws, and the undefined equivalent of State labor laws.

It deprives contractors of their legal rights to challenge such allegations. The reporting requirement covers non-final administrative merits determinations without regard to the severity of the alleged violation.

Contractors would have to disclose National Labor Relations Board complaints, OSHA citations, EEOC non-final letters of determination, even though these cases have not been adjudicated and the record is incomplete.

Contractors challenged this rule in Federal Court, and the judge, in granting a preliminary injunction for the rule, found this reporting requirement could also impact contractors' First Amendment rights. The judge said that the rule could result in compelled speech by requiring contractors to report allegations that would cause a reputational harm, particularly if after adjudication the allegation is found to be without merit.

This rule increases costs, complexity, and reduces competition in the Federal acquisition system. We are having trouble getting new entrants in to compete as contractors, and, therefore, I urge the support of the passage of H.J. Res. 37.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the lead sponsor of the joint resolution and the chair of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) be permitted to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte. I also want to thank Congressman Ratcliffe of Texas.

Included in H.R. 5 is the All Economic Regulations Are Transparent Act, or the ALERT Act. I want to highlight that, in the past two Congresses, the ALERT Act was reported favorably out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The ALERT Act itself is simply a transparency bill. It requires the administration to provide meaningful information about upcoming regulations online before those are actually issued. Early online disclosure will create the need for transparency so the public can see what is on the horizon.

Each month, Federal agencies will be required to list all regulations expected to be proposed or finalized within the following year. For each regulation on the list, the issuing agency is required to provide basic information to the public about that regulation. This includes the objectives of the regulation, the legal basis for the regulation, and where it stands in the rulemaking process.

If the agency expects to finalize the regulation within the following year, the agency is also required to provide information about the impact of the regulation. This includes estimates on the costs, the completion date, and the economic effects of the regulation, including the net effect on jobs--something that doesn't happen now but seems to be just common sense.

In this 21st century, Federal agencies should have to show their work online so the public can engage. That is why I like what Mr. Ratcliffe has championed since he has become a Member of this Congress. Let's also understand and remember that, by the administration's own estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over the last 10 years have imposed the cost of at least $100 billion annually on the American taxpayers.

Again, I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte's work and commitment on this issue. I want to thank, again, our good friend, Congressman John Ratcliffe, for his work on this. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has looked upon this very favorably. We are very supportive of the overall bill, as well as this specific provision.

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

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

H.R. 5 requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, often called OIRA, to provide guidelines for agencies on how to effectively conduct regulatory activities.

This is a great bill. I wholeheartedly support the bill. We simply want to add a timeline to this bill so that we give the proper incentive, notification, and time to properly institute what this new law would do.

The regulatory activities engaged in this bill that OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, deals with need to include cost and benefit assessments and their economic or risk assessments; coordination, simplification, and harmonization of the agency rules; conforming rulemaking to the notice and comment requirements and formal rulemaking requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act; as well as the application of the Information Quality Act to rulemaking proceedings under what is called the APA.

These guidelines required by the underlying bill are moving the country in the right direction and will ensure that agencies produce thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-vetted regulations.

The simple amendment that I offer today, Mr. Chairman, to H.R. 5 simply requires OIRA to issue guidance within 270 days. I think this is the right balance of encouragement to have them get going on it right away, but at the same time not allowing this to linger in perpetuity with no end in sight.

This amendment provides OIRA, I think, the proper balance. That is why I have offered this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, certainly the gentleman from Georgia is not opposed to the number 270. It is a beautiful number. Normally we give them about 6 months to promulgate a rule. This is 50 percent more than that. It is roughly 9 months. If a woman can give birth in that amount of time, my guess is they can go ahead and put together some rules in that amount of time.

We gave it quite a bit of thought. I think it is properly balanced. We don't want it to be a year. It is 50 percent more than we normally ask and that OIRA is used to doing in rulemaking. So certainly they can accomplish that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from Georgia is opposed to this bill, but I do think it is reasonable to give a time frame as to when they are supposed to issue this so it doesn't continue on in perpetuity. I think it is reasonable.

To the gentleman's point about the staffing, we don't get into that granular detail here. That is left to the Office of Management and Budget. Those decisions have been made by the Obama administration for the last 8 years. The new Office of Management and Budget will need to take into account the staffing levels and how OMB will determine whether they need more staff or less staff, but I would certainly support the idea that, if they are overwhelmed with issues, let's make sure that they are properly staffed.

This is an important agency. It is the bottleneck. We have to make sure that they are functioning properly. We are supportive of that, but I do think it is reasonable to offer that timeline. I appreciate the support of the chairman on this, and I urge passage of this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 274) to provide for reimbursement for the use of modern travel services by Federal employees traveling on official Government business, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 274, the Modernizing Government Travel Act, is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts. Mr. Will Hurd of Texas and Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina have all come together on this bill. It is a good bill.

This bill came up in the 114th Congress. The same bill passed through the committee by regular order, and then in a close vote--much like the Clemson-Alabama game last night--when we voted on this bill last session was 415-0. I think there was a pretty good sense from the past Congress that is a good bill, and it should pass.

Federal employees' current transportation options on official travel are limited. While some agencies allow employees to be reimbursed for the use of sharing economy services, such as Lyft or Uber, not all of them do. As a result, the whole Federal Government does not benefit from the cost savings that can occur while being associated with these services.

The Modernizing Government Travel Act allows the Federal Government to reap the benefits of the sharing economy. The bill ensures that new transportation services as they emerge, Federal employees can quickly take advantage of the efficiencies of the new technologies that may be offered.

By opening up a new market for transportation services, H.R. 274 will also help spur innovation and competition, creating greater cost savings. We have some 2 million Federal employees. So this is an important part and it shouldn't be glanced over. There could be considerable savings along the way.

We must ensure that there is accountability for travel expenditures. Our committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and other watchdog groups outside of government are looking at these expenses. We have a duty and obligation to ensure that we are dealing with Federal taxpayer dollars responsibly. This bill mandates that agencies report their travel costs for each type of travel service to the General Services Administration, the GSA. The GSA must publish that data, helping make the Federal Government more transparent and accountable. The GSA will also report to Congress on agency official travel costs in order to make sure that they inform future transportation policy decisions. I urge passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), the cosponsor of this bill and someone who has been very involved in this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Moulton, first and foremost, for his service to our country, serving in the armed services. We really do appreciate that. I can't thank him enough for that service. But I also appreciate him bringing forward this bill and his working with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

I appreciate what Mr. DeSaulnier and our ranking member on our committee, Mr. Cummings, have done, too, to help move this bill forward.

So there was good, broad, bipartisan support, strong support in the 114th Congress, passing unanimously, with 415 votes. I think it is worthy to bring this up early in the Congress and get on with the idea of saving money and taking advantage of technology, as Mr. Hurd said and as Mr. Moulton talked about as well, save some money and tap into the technology that is available to save money for the government and, ultimately, for the taxpayers. It is their money indeed. So I would urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor legendary BYU football coach LaVell Edwards, who passed away December 29, 2016 at the age of 86.

During the 29 years he coached at Brigham Young University, Edwards transformed a team that had never been ranked or invited to a bowl game into a perpetual force in college football.

Best remembered for leading his team to a national championship in 1984, Edwards also racked up an impressive 257-103 win/loss record. His team won 20 conference championships and qualified for 22 bowl game appearances.

LaVell Edwards touched countless lives, including mine, in a profound and positive way. I feel so fortunate to be among the many young men Coach Edwards influenced and molded during his storied career at BYU. My life is forever changed by my experience as a place kicker on his team.

Upon retiring from BYU in 2000, Edwards and his wife Patti served a mission for the LDS Church in New York, where, in addition to his missionary role, Edwards was invited to put his talents to work coaching football to Harlem youth.

Coach Edwards leaves behind a legacy of success on the field and off. He was a man of integrity whose example his players all wanted to emulate. He is survived by his wife Patti and three children. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 71) to provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the cost and performance of Government programs and areas of duplication among them, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill brought to us by lead sponsor Mr. Walberg of Michigan who has done considerable work on this not only at this point, but in Congresses of the past. We have cosponsorship from a number of people on both sides of the aisle--five members within the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).

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

I am thankful for the good work by Mr. Walberg and Mr. Cooper, who also serve on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I thank Mr. Clay and, certainly, Mr. Cummings.

In the 114th Congress, this bill was able to pass overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 413-0--with no opposition. It is truly bipartisan and bicameral. It is a good bill. I thank Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma for his work on the Senate side, and we do hope that it will make it swiftly through the Senate.

The Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act provides the public and Congress with increased transparency about Federal programs, including how much they cost and any benefits that they provide. It sounds like a good and worthy thing to do, and it passed the previous Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it here in the 115th Congress, and I am glad it is one of the first things that we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 73) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require information on contributors to Presidential library fundraising organizations, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), who has championed this effort for quite a while. He is passionate about this, and he has poured his heart and soul into it.

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

As has been highlighted here by Mr. Clay and by me, there is good bipartisan work that has gone on for far too long. It is time to pass this bill. I really do appreciate the good work Mr. Duncan of Tennessee has done and the work of Ranking Member Cummings of Maryland.

The Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2017 is the type of good-government, bipartisan legislation that is perfect to be one of the first bills to pass out of the 115th Congress. Last Congress, this legislation passed through the committee by regular order and passed the House of Representatives without opposition.

President Franklin Roosevelt established the first Presidential library in 1939. Since then, every former President since Herbert Hoover has had a library dedicated to his Presidential records. Each of the 13 current libraries is managed and operated by the National Archives and Records Administration at an annual cost of roughly $75 million. While these facilities are operated at taxpayer expense, the construction of these libraries is privately financed through donations.

As the volume of records for each President has increased over the years, so have construction costs. For example, when it opened in 2004, the Clinton Presidential Center, in part, cost approximately $165 million.

Nine years later, the George W. Bush Presidential Center, which opened in 2013, cost about $250 million. The Chicago Tribune has reported that President Obama's library might cost as much as $500 million.

Despite these escalating costs, there are no transparency requirements for Presidential library fundraising organizations. Here, transparency is important and very much needed.

This bill will require Presidential library fundraising organizations to disclose to the National Archives contributions in excess of $200 in any fiscal quarter in a searchable and sortable format. In turn, the National Archives will post this data online.

This disclosure requirement would end once control of a library facility is transferred to the National Archives. This ensures compliance costs of this legislation are minimal for both fundraising organizations and the National Archives.

This legislation is bipartisan. It is not intended to target any one individual. The Presidential Library Donation Reform Act has passed the House four times since 2002, with overwhelming support with both Democratic and Republican majorities in place at the time.

I would like to, again, highlight and thank my colleague, Representative Duncan. I do appreciate his efforts on this. I do hope that the 115th Congress is the time that the Senate will see fit to pass this bill to the President's desk.

I have no additional speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 70) to amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act to increase the transparency of Federal advisory committees, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Committee on Ways and Means for their work on this bill; and I include committee exchanges of letters into the Record.

Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 4, 2017.

Hon. Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Chaffetz, I am writing with respect to H.R.

70, the ``Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of

2017,'' which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform.

H.R. 70 involves issues that fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. As a result

of your having consulted with the Committee and in order to

expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 70, the Committee

on Ways and Means will not assert its jurisdictional claim

over this bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual

understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way

diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways

and Means with respect to the appointment of conferees or to

any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in die bill or similar legislation.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 70, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Kevin Brady,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that the primary sponsor is actually the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). I reserve the balance of my time in order to allow Mr. Clay to speak first on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

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

Again, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for his good work on this. The Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2017 was introduced by Representative Clay to help improve the governance and transparency of the Federal advisory committees. Last Congress, this bill passed through the committee by regular order and passed the House.

Congress acknowledged the merits of using advisory committees to acquire viewpoints from business, academic, and other interests when it passed the original act back in 1972. While not necessarily well-known, Federal advisory committees are small bodies of people who provide advice, guidance, and recommendation to Federal policymakers on a wide range of topics.

All told, in fiscal year 2015, there were roughly 1,000 Federal advisory committees, and they held roughly 7,400 meetings at a cost to the American taxpayers of more than $369 million. Now, this strikes me personally as an exceptionally high number. It is a large amount of money. We need to learn more about them, and I personally would help champion to reduce the number of overall Federal advisory committees.

We have some 2 million Federal employees, I think, who are highly capable, motivated, and compensated to provide this work. It is good to get outside perspective; but, at some point, we are going to have to look at the cost, the size, and the scope of this as well. Nevertheless, we have to make sure that we are getting the most of these taxpayer dollars.

Some agencies believe the FACA requirements are cumbersome and resource intensive. We could certainly streamline this. This reduces the ability of committees to focus on substantive issues in a timely fashion.

Both governmental agencies and private groups say the 1972 act does not do enough to require agencies to promote openness and transparency with regard to Federal advisory committees. The bill works to address these problems and bring transparency to the Federal advisory committees and the Federal agency decisionmaking process.

The bill provides needed transparency for how committee members are selected in several ways. First, the bill requires members to be selected without political affiliation. The bill also authorizes agency heads to require members to fully disclose any conflicts of interest. You would think that that would be common sense but something that we actually need to put into this bill and make sure that we understand that.

In addition, the bill allows these individuals who regularly attend and participate in committee meetings to be considered as a member, even if they are not allowed to vote.

The bill also improves transparency of committee activities. This is done by increasing the independence of these committees and making sure its advice, information, and recommendations are a judgment of the committee and not the agency.

The bill also increases transparency by requiring each agency to make available on their Web site the committee and its activities.

I urge our Members to support this. It has wide support and has had it in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I urge its passage. I again thank Mr. Clay, Mr. Connolly, and others who were working on this issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good piece of legislation. I again thank Mr. Clay and Mr. Connolly for their work on this, and I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 72) to ensure the Government Accountability Office has adequate access to information.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Ways and Means for their work on the bill, and I include the committee exchange of letters into the Record.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, January 4, 2017.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 3, 2017, H.R. 72, the GAO

Access and Oversight Act of 2017, was introduced by Rep. Earl

L. ``Buddy'' Carter (R-GA-1). The bill was referred primarily

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with an

additional referral to the Committee on Ways and Means.

I ask that you allow the Ways and Means Committee to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it

may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no

way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on Ways and Means represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any

response in the bill report filed by the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration, to

memorialize our understanding.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the original cosponsor of the bill. I want to thank the gentleman for his championing this bill through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 72, the GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017, and its chief sponsor, Mr. Buddy Carter of Georgia.

We have a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is spent efficiently and effectively. One of the key ways we carry out this duty is through the key watchdog of the government, the Government Accountability Office. The GAO has a proven track record of excellence, and we rely heavily on this group, thousands of professionals who pour their heart and soul into diving deep into organizations and understanding how they function. But as this bill states, we need some more openness and transparency.

In the past 6 years alone, it has identified more than 200 areas of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. They have made recommendations on 600 actions to make our government more effective and efficient. We need to listen to them and understand them. We also, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, have a duty and an obligation to give them the tools and access that they need in order to do their jobs even better. We must put GAO in the best position possible to rout out and deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

Today, we have an opportunity to better arm the GAO by clarifying its right to access data contained in the National Directory of New Hires. This gives GAO access to the most up-to-date data to ensure Federal program dollars go to the folks Congress intended to receive them. Doing so, we will help GAO better investigate potential fraud and improper payments, including those overextended disability insurance programs. The GAO's objectives are hindered without access to the data, and taxpayer dollars are not as well protected.

This bill has previously received overwhelming support in the House, and it is time for us to finish the job and pass the bill to the Senate and get it to the President's desk.

On September 16, the House approved this important bill by a vote of 404-0. The language in this bill was also included in bipartisan legislation that was approved unanimously by the full House in the 113th Congress. Again, it is time to send this bill to the President.

I would like to thank my colleagues, and Representative Buddy Carter in particular, for sponsoring this legislation and believing in it so wholeheartedly. I would also like to thank Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska as the lead sponsor in the United States Senate.

I urge passage of this bill. I have no additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 69) to reauthorize the Office of Special Counsel, to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide modifications to authorities relating to the Office of Special Counsel, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

First, let me note in the last Congress this legislation passed out of committee by regular order and passed the House on January 11, 2016.

The Office of Special Counsel is tasked with protecting Federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, including reprisals on whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are an indispensable part of helping Congress identify waste, fraud, and abuse at Federal agencies. Information provided by these brave folks can result in investigations and legislation that changes the way we conduct ourselves in government.

As the agency tasked with protecting whistleblowers, the OSC is vital to make sure these individuals feel comfortable coming forward and that they are offered protections. The agency has been busy. From 2013 to 2015, OSC's caseload increased from 4,500 cases open to more than 6,100. That increase coincided with multiple scandals within the Veterans Administration, as Mr. Blum of Iowa has highlighted.

In fiscal year 2016, OSC projected nearly 2,500 cases from just the VA--2,500 cases at just the Veterans Administration. This reauthorization will ensure the OSC has adequate funding to continue protecting whistleblowers in the VA and other agencies as well. The majority of the OSC funding goes directly to hiring employees who work to protect whistleblowers.

The bill also makes substantive improvements to current law to ensure the OSC can carry out its mission more effectively. Those reforms cover a few areas, ensuring agencies cooperate with the OSC, clarifying OSC's investigative procedures and making sure Congress receives clear information on whistleblower reprisal throughout the Federal Government.

With this bill, the OSC has clear authority to access agency records and to conduct its investigations. For its part, the OSC must treat those records in the same manner of confidentiality as the agency would, alleviating concerns about disclosure of sensitive information.

The bill also gives OSC needed flexibility to focus on claims that deserve our attention. It will allow the agency to terminate duplicative claims already being pursued by the Merit Systems Protection Board and claims that

exceed statutory timeframes. Agencies will also be required to submit reports detailing what actions they take as a result of these OSC investigations--something in Congress that we should be paying attention to. This reporting provision requires agencies to admit any failures in holding people accountable and gives Congress much-needed transparency.

Finally, the bill codifies OSC's practice under the current special counsel of disclosing to Congress results and statistics. Codifying this transparency ensures the practice will continue and allow for easier oversight of these activities.

In order to help protect the whistleblowers and reform the Federal agencies, I would urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 69.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill, H.R. 69. We have had four good champions led by Mr. Blum of Iowa in our committee who have helped put this together: Mr. Meadows of North Carolina, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, and Mr. Cummings, the ranking member out of Maryland. All four have come together as original cosponsors here in the 115th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 50.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill was referred to three other committees other than the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We have been in contact with all of them--Judiciary, Budget, and Rules--and they have agreed to discharge the bill from their committees so that we can consider the bill on the floor today. I include for the Record those letters that reflect this understanding between Oversight and Government Reform and the three other committees.

Mr. Chairman, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ``curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments.''

Twenty years later, we continue to see burdensome unfunded mandates being imposed on State, local, and tribal governments as well as small businesses. Despite high hopes, UMRA, as it is often referred to, had little effect on agency rulemaking because of its limited coverage and its lack of accountability.

In response, H.R. 50 proposes several key reforms to bring needed transparency to how government sets rules that protect our health, our safety, our welfare, as well as the environment. This legislation does this in several key ways.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 requires agencies to consult with the private sector when directly impacted by a proposed rule.

Consult with the private sector. That is a great theme. I love the title of this.

It does actually provide more information, more transparency, and engages those people that are affected by these rules. Requiring agency rulemakers to consult with small business owners will bring needed perspective and common sense to how our rules are made. Small businesses want the government to fully understand how regulations impact their ability to create jobs and promote economic growth. Of course we need rules. Of course there are going to be boundaries. But consulting with the private sector is something that has to happen, and government needs their perspective.

The bill makes independent agencies subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. There are hundreds of Federal independent agencies charged with handling responsibilities, such as managing workplace safety and protecting our forests. It is important these entities are accountable to the public when establishing a new rule. H.R. 50 ensures that that will happen.

H.R. 50 requires an UMRA analysis for all final rules. Under current law, an agency can forgo an UMRA analysis by avoiding a notice of proposed rulemaking. GAO reports that 35 percent of major rules are issued without a notice of proposed rulemaking, making it difficult for the public to comment.

In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations between $57 billion and $84 billion. We must have a better understanding of those costs before passing them on to State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector.

The bill strengthens congressional oversight by requiring agencies to look back at specific regulations when requested by Congress. Before a rule is tested, it is difficult to understand its consequences, including its costs and its benefits. President Obama supported retrospective reviews of regulations by issuing an executive order requiring agencies to periodically review significant regulations, in Executive Order 13563, in January 2011. These retrospective reviews result in regulations that are more effective and less burdensome in achieving their objective. Retrospective analysis can and should inform future rules.

H.R. 50 allows judicial review when agencies fail to fully consider the least costly or least burdensome alternative rule. The bill allows the judicial branch to place a stay on rules when the agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis. This provides an important check on the executive branch.

H.R. 50 codifies the Congressional Budget Office practice of estimating the true cost of a Federal mandate. When a Federal mandate is proposed, CBO ensures its cost estimates include lost profits, costs passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes as the result of a Federal mandate.

When enacted, UMRA created an important step to inform Congress of the potential burdens of regulatory mandates on both government and the private sector. This way, Congress could weigh any potential benefits as well as any potential burdens. By updating this law, we can help ensure that all parties, from government entities to small businesses, understand the true cost of prospective mandates.

I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). She has poured her heart and soul into this. She believes passionately in this. Her leadership on this bill has brought it to this point today. It has passed three times with bipartisan support in this House, but it is necessary to bring it up again and to share this bill with a new Senate that is now in place.

I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 50. It is good. It is common sense. It is good for this Nation, and it enjoys bipartisan support.

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

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 27, 2015, the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without

amendment H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and

Transparency Act of 2015, by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill was

referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and

Govemment Reform, with an additional referral to the

Committee on the Judiciary.

I ask that you allow the Judiciary Committee to be

discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it

may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no

way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future

referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be

necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee

on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee.

Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any

response in the bill report filed by the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration, to

memorialize our understanding.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, the prime sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest that this bill bypasses individuals. To the contrary, the bill says, ``and impacted parties within the private sector.'' The definition of ``private sector'' under UMRA--the term ``private sector'' means ``all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.''

Any assertion on this floor that this gives unilateral priority to the individual corporations and bypasses the individuals, we are trying to give people who are affected by these rules--we are trying to give them the opportunity to be heard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time left on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to the bill because it keeps getting repeated on this floor that it doesn't include the public, it doesn't include individuals. That is just not true.

On page 12 of the bill:

Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, seek out the

views of State, local, and tribal governments, and impacted

parties within the private sector.

Definition of private sector: the term ``private sector'' means all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.

It sounds like a good rhetorical point to keep saying: Oh, we are leaving out the little guy; we are leaving out the public. It does include the public; it does include the individuals; and when these unfunded mandates are placed upon them, this bill would make sure that they are at least asked about it. That is what we are seeking.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make Mr. Cummings aware that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

The one who is in the power position, the one who has got the resources, the one that has got the attorneys is the government. The government is the one that has got all the cards.

All we are asking for is to allow input from individuals, small businesses, big businesses. If you are going to be affected, isn't it common sense to suggest that maybe they should talk to the people that they are going to put this mandate on? Let's have a discussion, a dialogue, get some input from them?

The name of this bill is very, very accurate, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. What are we afraid of, asking them the question: How are you going to be impacted? What is this going to do to the economy?

What I hear from my constituents--and I have heard it from outside of Utah's Third Congressional District--is the Federal Government comes in with its big, heavy hand, and they have no voice, no opportunity. It is just laid upon them.

I appreciate Dr. Foxx and what she is doing. We also hear from State, local, and tribal governments, from small businesses and business organizations that are in support of this bill.

In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations was between $57 billion and $84 billion. There is room. There is appropriate use of regulations. To suggest that we are opposed to all regulations is irresponsible.

I think there are good regulations that are in place--they make our country better--but there needs to be a process and a communication and input from individuals that are affected by these regulations.

We have got to understand the costs and how we are passing these unfunded mandates on to State and local governments. This is an important part of the process.

Updating this law, we can ensure all parties, from government entities to small businesses to individuals, understand the true costs of the prospective mandates.

This bill should successfully pass in the House again, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I applaud Dr. Foxx from North Carolina, the prime sponsor of this, for moving this legislation.

I would urge, my colleagues, a ``yea'' vote on H.R. 50, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Congressman Reed and what he is trying to do here. I think this makes a lot of sense.

His amendment asks agencies to consider the effects of regulatory action upon private property owners. The amendment furthers the bill's intent to

provide more input from private sector entities and taxpayers affected by these regulations. It thinks of farms and other types of public land issues that we deal with, particularly out West, but across the Nation.

Federal regulators should consider the effects of any regulation on private property owners.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, a cost-benefit analysis prior to the implementation of a regulation requires a number of assumptions that make an accurate analysis difficult, if not impossible.

H.R. 50 allows committee chairmen and ranking members to ask for the retrospective reviews of specific regulations.

I think there needs to be a degree of deference and some respect for the idea that it is for committee chairmen and ranking members, both sides of the aisle, not just based on some whim. I think it is offensive to suggest that it be just some whimsical thing.

This allows an important check on any pre-implementation cost-benefit analysis, and these retrospective reviews better clarify the true costs of regulation. Even President Obama supports retrospective reviews and issued an executive order requiring agencies to conduct them.

More importantly, retrospective reviews work. In April of 2014, the GAO issued a report on retrospective reviews at 22 executive agencies. That report found that more than 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led the agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulation text--90 percent.

However, the pace of retrospective review is much slower than planned, and the 22 agencies reviewed by the GAO had plans to conduct more than 650 retrospective reviews but had only completed 246 of them as of August of 2013.

As you can see, the agencies are already doing this work. It is good to go back and review. We shouldn't be afraid of that. We should encourage it.

This provision in the bill simply allows Congress to work with agencies to prioritize regulatory areas most important to the American taxpayer. We need to maintain the ability to make such requests, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, that is some good creative thinking right there. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to highlight, again, that when there was a report done by the GAO, they found that 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text.

All this does is ask for a report. It doesn't repeal it. It is not going to slow it down. What it does is ask for a report. That is an important process to go through, and when we have gone through it in the past, 90 percent of the time, according to the GAO, it has led to revisions that are important.

It is very difficult to understand what is going to happen on the front end. All we are asking for in this bill is let's consult with the individuals, the property owners, others who are affected, and then, if we need a report, and we are going to limit that to chairmen and ranking members, that is an appropriate thing to do.

What are we afraid of? We are just trying to get transparency to the issue and be able to highlight this.

I worry, when you talk about the numbers of reviews and how far behind, it just shows the massive numbers of regulations that go through this process. We should be able to review those. There are real Americans that are affected by this every day.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

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

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate my colleague from Virginia. I appreciate his tenacity and good work on these issues and on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

But I do have to suggest that if the economy is struggling, Federal regulators should be extra concerned about imposing undue and unnecessary costs on to the American public and the private sector job creators.

H.R. 50 helps ensure that regulations that impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector are fully analyzed and considered.

Keep in mind, we are focused here on unfunded mandates. This amendment would repeal this helpful legislation if the GDP rate grows at a rate of less than 5 percent. To me, this is counterproductive.

GDP is a deliberately broad measure of economic growth. The GDP does not reflect the impact a regulatory mandate might have on a State or local government or a portion of the private sector, nor does it reflect the impact of regulations as a whole.

Ultimately, GDP growth is not a substitute for a sensible regulatory analysis and process. I would argue that,

regardless of GDP growth or reduction, we need to allow, particularly these local governments, these tribal governments, these private individuals--it is the little guy that has this unfunded mandate thrust upon them that we have to review.

So repealing H.R. 50 if the GDP is failing to grow is contrary to the very purpose of this bill and, therefore, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, to take a metric of the gross domestic product, the entire economy, and then have that be the weighted factor by what may happen to a dairy farmer, for instance, who is out there in Utah or Kansas or Colorado is not the way that we should be determining whether or not H.R. 50 is in place.

If the economy is waning, if the economy is decreasing, if our production overall for our Nation is declining, that may be the very key indicator that we have thrust too many unfunded mandates upon the little guy, the dairy farmer, the person who has got a transmission shop. It could be a whole host of things. It may be upon private property owners. It could be--you name it.

Pretty much in this country, there are mandates that are thrust upon people, and they feel like they have no ability, no understanding why this happens. They don't feel like they have a voice in the process.

So I stand in opposition to this amendment. So, to the overall gross economy, to say that we are just going to repeal that, H.R. 50, and get rid of our ability to ask people to consult, ask the government agencies to consult with local governments, to consult with private individuals, to talk to small businesses, we are going to just get rid of that because the economy is waning?

I would argue that part of the reason our economy hasn't taken off is there are too many unfunded mandates. The government imposes these, and they don't have a full understanding of what is causing these people to not hire more people, to invest more capital.

So I stand in opposition to this. I appreciate the gentleman who offered it, but I stand in opposition to this amendment. I would urge my colleagues a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the body, thank the Speaker, and the process by which we did this. This bill came up in regular order in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We had a full and complete markup. That was followed by going to the Rules Committee.

Every single amendment that was offered at the Rules Committee was made in order, two Democrat amendments as well as the Republican amendment. We had good and lively debate about those, and we just voted on those amendments. I appreciate that.

From my heart, I will tell you that I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Illinois and everybody else in this body to attack and go after--defend the innocent and make sure that we attack domestic violence because it is so prevalent in every aspect of our society, but I would suggest to you that this is the wrong amendment.

What this does, it does not force the Federal Government to actually work with the individuals that are affected. What H.R. 50 does, what this bill does is to make sure that the Federal Government consults with individuals, it consults with small businesses, those that are affected by mandates.

I want the Federal Government--in fact, I would love to codify the idea that the Federal Government in this case and what you offer in the motion shouldn't talk to these people, they should talk to them. We want them to talk to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They should be the first people that they call. If you want to know what is happening in this country, go talk to the individuals who are affected by this.

What this legislation, H.R. 50, does is to make sure that individuals are asked before; it makes sure that nothing is repealed. We don't get to unilaterally repeal things. I heard the word ``repeal.''

No, there are reports that we need to access and look at, and so if we truly want to get after domestic violence and these heinous crimes-- these awful, hideous crimes--then you want to vote in favor of H.R. 50 and make sure that the Federal Government does go and consult with the victims of crime.

I oppose this motion to recommit and vote in favor of H.R. 50 by Dr. Foxx.

I yield back the balance of my time.