Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business  CSPAN  March 1, 2017 4:00pm-6:01pm EST

4:00 pm
already a widespread problem, will get much worse, undermining safety and health and putting workers in danger. group of 66 professional workplace safety groups wrote that osha, the osha clarifying rule and maintaining accurate records imposes no new costs to businesses, but is critical to assuring that workplace facilities and injuries are prevented. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that these letters be entered into the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. scott: i ask for a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i yield the balance of my time. i ask unanimous consent to put in a letter dated february 25, 2017 from the associated contractors of america. a letter from the associated builders and contractors. a letter dated february 27, 2017
4:01 pm
from the national association of home builders and a letter from the united states chamber of commerce. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. byrne: all of those groups i just mentioned support the repeal of this regulation that would come about by virt you of the bill that is -- virt you of the bill that is before you. why? because we have a right to expect that these regulatory agencies that congress sets up will do their job with the significant sums of taxpayer money that they are provided by this congress, the money that comes from the people of america to do their job in a timely fashion. and this agency comes for the forth and tries to act like it doesn't have the money or the authority to investigate violations and enforce the law within six months of a violation. that is not true. the american people have a right to expect more from the agencies than that.
4:02 pm
more to the point, the reason we are here today is really simple. we are here to overturn a rule that is blatantly unlawful and does nothing, i repeat nothing, to improve workplace safety. we are here to put a check on the very stop of executive overreach the congressional review act sought to address. by blocking this punitive and overreaching rule, we will firm congress' commitment to pro-act i have health and safety policies that prevent illnesses and injuries before they occur. if we wait until the illness or injury has occurred, we waited too late. osha has waited too late. it's time for osha to work with these employers, work with these people in the work zhrep place, to make the workplace safe. not show up five years after the fact when they don't have the authority and say now we are
4:03 pm
going to issue a violation. mr. speaker, the approach we have demanded for osha is to work in the workplace to ensure it is safe and we will continue to do that under this new administration. i urge my colleagues to overturn osha's unlawful power grab. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the clerk: disapproving the rules submitted by the department of labor with employers' continuing obligation to maintain a record of injury and illness. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the ressluge. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. scott: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise, a sufficient
4:04 pm
number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah wish to be recognized? mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1009. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. house resolution 156 and rule 118, the chair declares the house and the committee of the whole state of the union to consider h.r. 1009. mr. joyce will preside over the
4:05 pm
ommittee of the whole. e chair: the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house for consideration of h.r. 1009, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill 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. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
4:06 pm
first time. the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentlewoman from from the virgin islands, ms. plaskett, each will control 30 minutes. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: we are here to consider h.r. 1009, a bill sponsored by representative paul mitchell of michigan, co-sponsored on the zpwoft and oversight committee and we are pleased to have co-sponsors of the rules committee chairman, pete sessions, as well as representative tim walberg also from michigan. i rise in support of h.r. 1009, the oira insights reform and accountability act. it stands for the office of information and regulatory affairs. it has many responsibilities. little known agency, but very powerful and very important as
4:07 pm
some of its 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 reafffirmed by president obama in 2009. the oira insights reform and accountability act puts into statute the basic structure that has existed for more than two decades. the legislation includes minor adjustments for increased transparency and accountability. agencies are required to provide oira with any changes the agency chooses to make during the review process and allows the public to understand how review can improve the quality of rulemaking. it extends the time for oira to review regulations. oira has 90 days to review a regulation but the request of the requesting agency, they can extend the review without notice
4:08 pm
to the public. many rules were under review for more than a year with no explanation whatsoever. the 1009 requires oira and regulating agency to provide a written explanation to the public included an estimated date of completion. the government works for the people. you would sympathy if they are going to miss deadlines and go late beyond the current rules, the people involved in the rulemaking would offer a little bit of a written explanation. the bill 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 that independent udes agencies. independent regulatory agencies submit their regulations to oira for the unified agenda and the annual regulatory plans.
4:09 pm
under the paperwork reduction act, agencies submit collection requests, which is another way to save government forms or 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 the independent agencies in significant regulation review process. again, a good group there. the administrative conference of the united states as well as american bar association also asking for these independent agencies. there is significant bipartisan agreement on including the independent agencies. in fact, president obama's job council recommended including independent agencies in oira's regulatory review. sali captain, oira administrator under president clinton said, quote, for all practical purposes the way executive branch agencies and independent agencies conduct rulemaking is the same and should be asked to
4:10 pm
gather the proposals. she went on to suggest, quote, congress could adapt that same approach for oira, review of the analysis underlining independent rulemaking. and that's 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' wule making. during the course of the investigation, it was clear oira was not conducting the analysis, i think we should all expect. oira short changed the interagency review process in order to meet the self-imposed arbitrary deadline. issue009 requires oira to a report on the regulation it reviews so you can see what it
4:11 pm
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 it through the process or was the agency just going through the motions? it's simple questions that can be answered. agencies are supposed to consider the public comments but what if the final rule is drfted before the comments are reviewed. perhaps the law does not prohibit that, but is it a an effective regulatory practice? the question is whether agencies have complied but whether the agency is doing everything to limit the burden and make regulations effective and easy to understand. by requiring oira review to the public, this bill will encourage agency accountability and improve public understanding of the rulemaking process.
4:12 pm
the committee approved this bill without amendment on february 14 of this year. again, i 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 it on the floor of the house and i thank kathy for her work on this bill and spent a lot of work working with both sides of the aisle. i urge the passage of this bill and will reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from from the virgin islands is recognized. ms. plaskett: 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 a codification of an executive order president clinton issued. that simply is not the case. this bill makes significant changes to the regulatory process.
4:13 pm
the bill would require independent agencies to submit rules to the office of information and regulatory affairs for very view. independent agencies do not have to get 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, oversight committee chairman, jason chaffetz sent four letters to the chairman of the federal communications commission alleging that the white house had and i quote an improper influence" on the f.c.c. neutrality plan and that the f.c.c. quote failed to establish the that this rulemaking is independent, transparent and fair. the bill we are considering would enshrine that law that my chairman had concerns about, political interference with the white house and other independent agencies.
4:14 pm
the congressional budget office estimates that this bill would increase direct spending by $3 million and reduce revenues by $2 million. these effects are caused by the fact that the bill covers independent agencies. c.b.o. has also estimated that the bill would cost federal agencies an additional $20 million in administrative costs. imagine, i'm fighting to keep the budget down in this matter. the bill does not include offsets for additional spending. the bill owe myths critical phrases from the executive order that ensures that oira reviews do not contradict existing law. let's, see for examining, the executive order requires agencies to provide the cost and benefits of alternatives to a proposed rule, and i quote, 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.
4:15 pm
it's unclear how the bill would impact laws to prohibit agencies from considering costs when setting public health standards. the coalition for sensible safeguards, an alliance of 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 the industry process. these consequences flows from another key difference between h.r. 1009 and the executive order that it purports to codify. where the orders prop the requirements only consistent with the applicable laws, h.r.
4:16 pm
1009 recognizes no such limitation. mr. chairman, this bill would give oya the ability to hold up rulemaking indefinitely. under executive order 12866, the administrator 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, and i quote for any number of additional 30-day periods upon written requests by the administrator or the head of the agency, unquote. the bill also gives the rulemaking agencies the ability to object to an extension of oira review periods, but it's not realistic to think that an agency would refuse a request for an extension from the white house. . that letter said, and i quote, a particular concern is the
4:17 pm
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, and i reserve the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to yield to the sponsor of the bill, mr. mitchell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mitchell: i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding. president trump spoke about the need and this commitment for regulatory reform. i'd like to echo this comment.
4:18 pm
the chief reasons the voters sent most of us here is because they know that federal regulation is killing our a heavy nd placing burden on our economy. the oira act codifies the office of information and regulatory affairs, known as oira. oira serves as a regulatory gatekeeper, a safety valve, providing a process and review to hold back the floodgates of burdensome and duplicative authorizations. it was originally created during the reagan administration and further outlined by president clinton in executive order. president clinton put it well when he said the american people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them. a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment and well-being and improves the performance of the economy
4:19 pm
without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society. regulatory processes and policies that recognize the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth. regulatory approaches that respect state, tribal governments and are consistent and reasonable and understanding. i agree with president clinton's words in 1993. this is about making sure that government solves problems rather than creates them and create them it has. n recent state it has grown to unpress dnted levels. agencies published over 36,000 final rules of which 555 were considered economically significant. that is anticipated economic effect of $100 million or more. many of these regulations have been imposed without thorough cost-benefit analysis and place huge burdens on families and businesses.
4:20 pm
what's worse, americans have ad little, if any, info as unelected bureaucrats imposed regulations that negatively impact them. it's our responsibility as the people's representatives to protect them from these overregulating. this bill is simple and plain. this bill locks into place the existing transparency requirements under the unified agenda and the regulatory plan. the bill also requires oira to tell us what they are currently doing. h.r. 1009 requires oira to give us a readout. imagine that. we want to tell them what they're doing. is the legislation well-drafted? the agency meet the requirements of the law? that's a novel approach? did the agency pick the best way to regulate? they are supposed to do this under the executive order. i am surprised and disappointed
4:21 pm
that even on this bill that we have seen significant opposition. my minority counterparts made strained legal arguments. they don't like the basic concepts of the bill. these are not partisan concepts. we heard their concerns in committee. we obviously disagree on this point and as the chairman said, this has passed by committee without amendment and we look forward to support and i ask my colleagues to support the bill. i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the virgin islands is recognized. ms. plaskett: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. we're opposed to the bill because we received letters, concerns from a cross section of americans, a cross section of organizations who recognize this is not really a codification of an executive order but this is overreach on
4:22 pm
the part of the majority of congress at this time. they feel 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 eye' quoting now from the consume -- i'm quoting now from the consumer federation of america which says it will 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're going to be doing throughout oversight and government reform is creating new task forces, new groups to review regulations at the cost of the taxpayers. h.r. 1009 would jeopardize the independence of agencies like the consumer product safety commission, the securities and exchange commission, the commodity futures trading commission, the federal communications commission as well as other independent agencies because it will give the office of information and
4:23 pm
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 that 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 squash 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, a fair financial marketplace and consumer privacy. this bill would undermine the authorizing statutes and the missions of these independent
4:24 pm
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 that the bill would also revaive 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 removes such language when it updated tsca because the phrase had made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster. ven when the chemical wear was asbestos, known to be a carcinogen. the phrase least burdensome has been interpreted to put an agency in an impossible position of providing that
4:25 pm
there's 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 match nations that this congress is now trying to impose on them. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to note i have no additional speakers. i reserve the right to close. and let me also just mention that the bill does not require any of these agencies to provide new analysis but it does -- and i haven't really heard an example or a reason why something would be prohibited in an agency from sharing existing, existing
4:26 pm
cost-benefit analysis. what could the agencies have that they should not share with oira? it just seems reasonable they have this information, that they should share it, because ultimately we do work for the american people and the american people should be able to see this information as it goes to oira. so, again, mr. chairman, i have no additional speakers but i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. ms. plaskett: mr. chairman, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: i want to thank you very much, ms. plaskett, for yielding time to me. h.r. 1009 would empower trump's white house to block all the independent financial agencies' proposed actions to protect our economy. and worse, the bill empowers
4:27 pm
president trump's advisors to influence monetary policy, including interest rates that affect america's mortgages, credit cards and i.r.a.'s. independent agencies like the consumer financial protection bureau, would have to first receive the ok from trump's administration packed with wall street insiders before they could protect the american public. for example, the administration could block the consumer financial protection bureau's recent proposal to stop payday lending death traps. these agencies would be directed to write rules favorable to industry, subjecting individuals once again to predatory practices. i am so deeply troubled that h.r. 1009 gives the trump administration a say in the federal reserve's monetary policy decisions. the importance of fed independence is well-established and results in
4:28 pm
objective, nonpolitical policymaking and a high degree of credibility with financial markets. however, today's bill threatens the integrity of these decisions. given that the fed's actions can move stock markets by hundreds of points, we should absolutely reject the trump white house and the republicans' desire to use the fed for partisan gain. n administration that believes believes fake news, unquote, goes to inflate the attendees at the inauguration and debt level should not be able to meddle with the marketplace guardrails critical to our economy's health. so i would urge members to oppose this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah is
4:29 pm
recognized. mr. chaffetz: reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the virgin islands. ms. plaskett: mr. chair, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. holmes norton. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i thank my good friend from the virgin islands for yielding to me. i simply had to come down as i our his attempt to use jurisdiction to undermine our independent agencies and i want to put an emphasis on independent agencies because they have always been treated differently. the executive order 12866 have long subjected agency rulemakings to some review by the office of information and regulatory affairs, but independent agencies have been
4:30 pm
treated differently. congress deliberately created them as independent to exempt them from political review for their regulatory actions by the white house. the kinds of agencies we are talking about are agencies that deal with our economy. they are almost agencies whose subject matter is controversial, like the national labor relations board, which deals with labor management matters or the f.t.c., another example, which prevents -- whose role is to prevent anticompetitive business practices, not to mention the fed. now, the executive order oira with the ability
4:31 pm
to do cost benefit analysis, quote, unless prohibited by law. those words are our words, unless prohibited by law. now that language is not in this executive order. does it mean that it is erased so that with respect to environment and public safety rules prohibited by law no longer -- no longer obtains cost benefit can be done so that you can weigh the cost or the benefit of rules -- the benefits would be clear, but the cost of rules that are so protective of the public that we have exempted them in the past. the silence is deafening. agencies also have always been able to indicate, because they have the only real knowledge
4:32 pm
whether or not their rulemakings are significant. how can we give this inclusive authority now to oira? the po litization of independent agencies making them subject to white house oversight is very dangerous. it robs them of what is perhaps the most important part of their independent. goes -- this bill goes many steps too far and i yield back the balance of my time. and i appreciate -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah. chafechife 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,
4:33 pm
because whether or not they think they are independent or not, they still work for the american people and the people are footing the bills and living under these regulations should have the right to see this information and have this information provided to them through the process. and we're never going to apologize for trying to increase the transparency in the process. that's what this bill does. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from virgin islands is recognized. ms. plaskett: this bill isn't 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.
4:34 pm
at this time, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1009, the oira insight reform and accountability act, yet another radical bill, part of corporate agenda trying to get rid of protections and other laws to ensure the safety of american families. i have several serious concerns with this measure. first, h.r. 1009 would get rid of of the independent of agencies that are critical toll holding corporations accountable such as the consumer financial bureau and the securities and exchange commission. congress established these agencies with the expressed purpose of exercising independence. would 3423 of h.r. 100
4:35 pm
task the white house with a government-wide resue of significant regulatory actions effectively placing this obscure entity as the gatekeeper of the rulemaking system. oira reviews a small portion of significant regulatory actions allowing it to allocate its resources to review the most pressing rules. by expanding the mandate to include every significant regulatory action, this regulation would water down agency oversight while subjecting agencies the influences of the trump administration, facilitating political interference in the rulemaking process. one of the goals is to ensure that the president's policies are reflected in agency rules. greater presidential control overrule making could have
4:36 pm
devastating consequences in terms of public health and safety. it would not only provide public safety with an additional fool for regulatory capture but allow the white house to substitute its preferences to those of congress. as senator johnson, the republican chair with jurisdiction over administrative law in a report last year and i quote, limits on the president's power like the federal communications commission demonstrate the importance of maintaining the agency's independence, unquote. president trump has made the outrageous and choice not to divest his business holdings, i'm concerned that h.r. 1009 would serve to convert the regulatory system into his own personal investment account. the president of public citizenry noted that the nation's golfer in chief owns and brands businesses across the
4:37 pm
country that would benefit from protections. increases the white house's role in the rulemaking system will serve to undermine what little transparency exists into the president's regulatory conflicts of interest. the government accountability office has reported in multiple studies that oira has not addressed transparency concerns that g.a.o. has raised. i offered an amendment and pleased to hear my friend from utah talk about the transparency benefits, but i offered an amendment to h.r. 1009 was designed to ferret out crony capitalism to require reports with significant regulatory action would benefit the president or senior advisers. that is a central idea if you want to get to the idea of transparency. refusedappointingly and to make any amendment in order and what this transparency would mean for the trump
4:38 pm
administration. while supporters says it codifies executive orders that were issued under democratic administrations, h.r. 1009 was drafted without democratic input and contains several poison pill provisions and only have been vetoed and as the obama administration noted, agencies already adhere to the robust and well understood procedural annual it call requirements of the regulatory flexibility act act. e unfunded passage to replace with layers of procedural requirements, the obama administration cautioned would undermine the ability of agencies. h.r. 1009 does this very thing, i urge my colleagues to oppose
4:39 pm
this legislation. and i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. ms. plaskett: at this time, mr. chair, i would just like to close. there are many organizations that oppose this bill, including consumer protection groups such as the center of popular democracy. they sent a letter to house members today and i quote, the coalition exists to ensure that policy making at the federal reserve reflects the concerns of working families and communities of color. by encoaching on the fed's ability and extending the hand of the executive branch in the federal reserve decision making h.r. 1009 undermine's the fed's ability to keep our systems safe and protect working families that our coalition represents.
4:40 pm
i urge members to vote no on h.r. 1009. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i want to point out that the bill does extend oira to review independent agencies. i also would point 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 associations recommended oira review be extended to independent agencies in 1990 and reafffirmed the need again in 2016 and said quote, we strongly urge you to bring the regulatory commissions within the requirements for cost-study-benefit analysis. cost benefit analysis, isn't that something reasonable we should look at?
4:41 pm
that's not asking an agency too much. they went on to say and i quote, review of rules currently reflected in executive order. unquote. these are not overly burdensome requests. oira 1, sali captain, the administrator, urged congress to sfend review when she wrote and i quote, 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, unquote. seems like a reasonable expectation to employ best practices. and all this bill does is again, it does not interfere with independent agencies' rulemaking process or their policy
4:42 pm
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 and i urge its passage. i believe the gentlewoman a has yielded back and i yield back. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under a five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment under the five-minute rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-4. the amendment shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 115-21.
4:43 pm
each amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report, shall be considered read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent. shall not be subject to an amendment or be subject to a subject of division of the question. it is in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in ouse report 11-21. mr. mitchell: for purpose of addressing my amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-21 offered by mr. mitchell of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 156, mr. mitchell and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mitchell: this amendment
4:44 pm
makes technical changes to ensure consistency and dates and terms and require oira to review consistent guidance. it allows oira four weeks to review the submissions and extend the regulatory review beyond 90 days and written explanation. that's critical and must explain to us any extension, clarifies the timing of the disclosure to occur as soon as they make the final proposed rule public. it is limited to exchanges which senior level oira staff requires a written explanation for any exempt regulations and expands to review the documents. this amendment primarily makes technical changes to the bill that were developed. we took the concerns and suggestions and incorporated most of those in this amendment.
4:45 pm
this amendment clarifies the review extension process that has been the subject of some conversation here. our minority counterparts has claimed that oira has 90 days and 30-day extension to review a current executive order. that is currently not true. under the obama administration, oira at times exceeded two years without explanation. this limitless extension is limitless which allows a 30-day extension and limitless extension at the request of the agency. . it puts limits on that and requires disclosure of that. we could put limits on review and extension process. another important addition to this amendment is we are extending oira's review to guidance documents. this is not a new practice.
4:46 pm
in 2007 president bush issued executive order 13422 which extended oira's review to guidance documents. while president bush rescinded that executive order, oira administrator said to the oversight committee that oira should continue the practice of reviewing guidance documents. this will rise if they meet the significant standard. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the remainder of my time, sir. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands rise? ms. plaskett: mr. chair, i rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized 5. plaskett -- is recognized for five minutes. ms. plaskett: 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 an extension be
4:47 pm
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 would interfere with other laws. the natural resources defense council sent a letter to house members opposing h.r. 1009. that letter states, and i quote, this 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's charged with ensuring that regulations opposes the least burden on society. congress removes such language when it updated the toxic substances control act because it made it impossible for chemical safety regulations to pass judicial muster.
4:48 pm
en when chemical was asbestos, a well-known carcinogen. it includes language that no funds should be authorized to carry out the bill. this does not change the fact that the c.b.o. 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. c.b.o. also estimates that the bill would change the operations of the federal reserve which would result in $2 million in reduced revenues. c.b.o. 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 and reserve the balance of my time.
4:49 pm
the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. mitchell: one brief comment which is we are perfectly comfort with the cost of $20 billion given -- comfortable with the cost of $20 billion given what it costs businesses and taxpayers. we think it's a small investment to have regulations police e, not be dupe indicated -- duplicated. thank you, sir. and i reserve the remainder. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. plaskett: i am so grateful that my colleague is interested in making investments, monetary investments with taxpayers' dollars and i will be looking to him and other co-sponsors and supporters when we look in investing in working class workers when we have the budget discussions. i have no further statements at this time and i yield back the
4:50 pm
balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. mitchell: i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115-21. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. buck: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 115-21 offered by mr. buck of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 156, the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. buck: thank you, mr. chairman.
4:51 pm
this amendment empowers state, local and tribal governments by ensuring they have a say in the regulatory process. h.r. 1009 already codifies and improves upon the practices of the office of information and regulatory affairs. my amendment strengthens the language even further, requiring oira to hold federal agencies accountable for coordinating and consulting with state, local and tribal governments before issuing new regulations. in other words, we're giving governors, local officials and tribal leaders a say. they know what their communities need much better than the bureaucrats in washington. unfortunately, our federal agencies have a habit of issuing regulations and policies without consulting local and state governments. for example, we just need to look at the e.p.a.'s waters of the united states rule. historically states have had significant authority over water management. governors have worked with
4:52 pm
local and tribal leaders to set up their own laws and regulations to ensure that water is properly allocated, that water meets certain quality standards and that water in their state is protected from misuse. the e.p.a.'s wotus rule is excessive and burdensome because they disregarded the role of the state in crafting waterway regulations. the agency held no substantive consultation with governments prior to issuing the rule. despite states' role, despite experts who could have helped the e.p.a. craft regulations, and ensuring that federal agencies consult with state, local and tribal officials before issuing a rule, ferble officials never gave state, local and tribal officials the opportunity to explain how their states were currently handling the situation and how this rule could negatively
4:53 pm
impact their jurisdictions. since the e.p.a. bureaucrats barreled ahead without input, they proposed an overreaching rule. this would require the e.p.a. and other agencies to account for how proposed rules would affect impacted states, localities and tribes. the amendment under consideration simply requires washington to listen to and learn from local governments. because local governments are closer to the people, and the people of this nation should have a say in the rules, regulations that are affecting their livelihoods. in closing, this amendment is simple and ensures regulatory agencies talk with states, localities and tribal leaders throughout the process. i urge my colleagues in the house to support this and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands rise? ms. plaskett: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition but i do not oppose this amendment. the chair: without objection,
4:54 pm
the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. chairman. 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's 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 this bill does not exclude independent agencies from 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 in the bill to ensure that oira reviews do not contradict existing laws. the amendment also fails to mandate a specific time frame within which oira must complete
4:55 pm
its review. the amendment simply does nothing to improve the numerous deficiencies in this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. buck: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. plaskett: yes, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115-21. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house
4:56 pm
report 115-21 offered by mr. young of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 156, the gentleman from iowa, mr. young, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from michigan for introducing this important legislation, and i want to thank the chairman of the committee for shepherding this through. my amendment seeks to strengthen the underlying bill in two ways. first, my amendment requires agencies to proactively consider whether their actions are duplicative or conflicting. as iowans and all americans know all too well, the maze of the federal bureaucracy can be too confusing. it holds the agency proposing the regulation accountable to prevent the growing red tape strangling our economy and jobs engine. the federal regulatory environment over the past few decades has allowed agencies to
4:57 pm
operate unchecked. leading to overlapping and conflicting rules which come at a rivetting cost to the economy, the taxpayer and to the jobs. so by requiring agencies to proactively consider dupe policecation as part of -- duplication as part of their plan, credibility rears itself. we don't need due policity. we don't need to waste resources and time in the federal government. so secondly, my amendment works to increase regulatory transparency by improving the public's access to information. transparency. by requiring each agency to maintain last of every active regulatory action submitted to the office of information and regulatory affairs on its website, we can shine the light on agencies' rules and regulations which as we know have the full effect of law. so this would include a list of all active regulatory actions,
4:58 pm
the agencies' most recent regulatory plan and a link to all records submitted to the office of information and regulatory affairs for review. so in closing, many of our constituents may be unfamiliar with the office of information and regulatory affairs and its role and may not know where to find important information on regulatory actions, so simply agency's lincoln an website, -- creating a link on an agency's website, this is low burden for a considerable benefit. it's all about transparency. it's all about the taxpayers' access to information. so i appreciate the leadership of the chairman and the author of this bill, and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman
4:59 pm
reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands rise? ms. plaskett: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. plaskett: thank you, 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, and i quote, 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 this
5:00 pm
executive order covers the review and elimination of duplicative and regulatory actions. frankly, the elimination of regulations that are duplicative and conflicting are one of the most -- best thing for them to be more effective and less burden, forcing them to describe what they are doing is wasteful and unduly burdensome. agencies already keep the public apprised of their regulatory activities through e easily accessible websites eginfo doif. 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. .
5:01 pm
the public can also access a list of pending agency rules, and each of these has easily accessible links to allow the public to obtain further information about the rules and -- including its status and the order about the rule. this bill does nothing to improve h.r. 1009 and will force agencies to waste resources on work already being done. i urge members to oppose this amendment. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- he chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: i appreciate the spirit of what my colleague said and what has been done in the past, we want to give it extra teeth an also transparency and access to taxpayer information
5:02 pm
so so crucial. so i -- is so crucial. i urge adoption of this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from the virgin islands. ms. plaskett: i have nothing further at this time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: i yield back. the chair: the question isen the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ms. plaskett: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 115-21. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. meadows: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house
5:03 pm
report 115-21, offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 156, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the full committee on matters of transparency and accountability. i can tell you there's no one who has a greater definitive desire to make sure that we hold our government accountable and certainly accountable to the american people. and so it's with that goal in mind that i rise to ask my colleagues to support an amendment that we're offering that would actually just keep a log of any of the pre-review consultations with agencies that oh ira -- that oira actually has and conducts.
5:04 pm
to publish that list upon completion of review. dating back to some 2003, the government accountability office had made the recommendation about increasing this transparency at the office of information and regulatory affairs. g.a.o. actually made one recommendation targeted at what they call informal review, mr. chairman. that oira conducts before an agency formally submits a rule for review. indeed, the g.a.o. recommended that the director of office of management and budget should define a transparency requirement that would be applicable to agencies and oira in section 6 of executive order 12-866 in such a way that would not include not -- that would include not only the formal review but also the informal review period when oira says it has sometimes, considering some of the most important facts as it relates to new rules.
5:05 pm
this recommendation remains unimplemented today. i can tell you, mr. chairman, we've had a number of hearings where we've had this particular group in. i know my colleagues, the gentleman opposite, from virginia, and i believe that oira plays a critical role and yet at the same time some of these meetings were going on without the knowledge and even after the effect when they went into effect, the rule went in, we had really no understanding of some of the deliberation that went on. so this is just a transparency, common sense amendment. i would urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. plaskett: i oppose this amendment, and it's unfortunate because we believe that this amendment on its own is something that would draw bipartisan support.
5:06 pm
unfortunately, this amendment is attached to h.r. 1009 because the amendment would make the role of oira and rule making process more transparent. the government accountability office is consistent -- has consistently found that oira is not transparent about its involvement in shaping rules. the g.a.o. testified to the oversight committee in march of 2016 that it has made 25 recommendations to o.m.b. to improve its process but o.m.b. 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. for that, you know, we believe and we're 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
5:07 pm
bill. and is rather packaged with a partisan bill the house is considering today. for this reason, we're in opposition to the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. and has the right to close. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman i thank the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. as a fwifted orator and certainly a gifted attorney i appreciate her compliments and although not all might agree with her assess ofment the reasonable fashion of which i craft particular amendments, i do appreciate the fact that she recognizes it in this case. she also knows that in doing this, working in a bipartisan way, is something that on this particular committee, oversight and government reform, mr. chairman, we have had just a wonderful history of being able to work in a real way.
5:08 pm
so she certainly has my commitment to continue to try to perfect the language in making sure that transparency is held paramount. that being said, i don't intend to withdraw the amendment because there are two ways things get done here in washington, d.c. slow, and never. and if we just remember that, this particular day, hopefully, we will put this in place but she -- the esteemed gentlewoman from virgin islands has my commitment to work with her in a bipartisan way to perfect any language in legislation that may come up after this particular bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from the virgin islands. ms. plaskett: mr. chairman, the fact that the gentleman is willing to work with me means it's been a wonderful day for me. i'm so glad because i understand, though i don't always agree with everything he says, i know that the gentleman from north carolina's heart is
5:09 pm
in the right place, he's working toward resolution of issues that she's principled in his beliefs about. at this time i yield one minute to the esteemed gentleman of virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connelly: i want to associate myself with the underlying intent of my friend from north carolina. he is right that at our hearings e discovered flaws in oira's process. and i think his amendment is meant to address that. because of the underlying bill, i'm not going to oppose the gentleman's amendment but i share the concern of my friend, the delegate from the virgin islands and will be opposing the underlying bill. with that, i yield back. ms. plaskett: with that, we yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from north
5:10 pm
carolina. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman, i thank my colleagues opposite for their gracious remarks. i understand their reluctance to support it based on their concerns with the underlying bill. i again reaffirm my commitment to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that transparency is the key for the day and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 115-21. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 115-21, offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: pursuant to the rule,
5:11 pm
the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz and a member posed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz thk this amendment requires oira to maintain records on each regulatory action reviewed such that it is easily accessible and trans-- and transferable when responding to congressional re-- requests. unfortunately, we asked for records relating to the review of the waiters of the united states, wotus, and that rule-making possess. the administrator failed to take the request 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 nonre-- nonresponse i. we held hearings, had lengthy
5:12 pm
staff-to-staff conversations but still oira did not seem to take the requests seriously. i don't know how much money they wasted in time and effort and -- 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 chairman, getting on the phone with the head of o.m.b., when i told -- i said i had every intention of holding the gentleman in contempt and issue a contempt report that we received a full set of documents. this was well past a year since the initial request. you should not have to go through this jy -- through these gyrations whatsoever. i think the resistance was largely political maneuvering, it 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's my own personal opinion. but for those that are here and the future generations, it seems
5:13 pm
reasonable that they have to have their act in order if they're going to issue a rule. and if congress asks for the underlying information, as representatives of the people, that should be easily transferable to congress upon request. that's what this amendment does. this is why it should pass. that's what this amendment is intended to do. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. plaskett: 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. agency, including the office of management and budget, are required to preserve records according to the record schedules urn the federal records act and regulations issued by the national archives and records administration. this amendment says oira must do what it is already required to do. this amendment provides a platform to express frustration
5:14 pm
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. id look forward to him expressing the same outrage with the current administration does not provide documents that the members on this side of the aisle, the democratic members of the committee, request. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i have no additional speakers and reserve he balance of my time. ms. plaskett: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. chaffetz: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 115-21. for what purpose does the
5:15 pm
gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 115-21, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 156, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. conditionally: i would like to note this would require independent agencies to submit their rules to oira for review. the congressional budget office said it would increase spending by $3 million and reduce revenues by $2 million. it would cost federal agencies an additional $20 million in administrative costs for compliance. the reason the bill costs money is because it does not simply codify an executive order as its proponents suggest. the bill would require independent agencies for the
5:16 pm
first time to submit their rules to oira for review. independent agencies such as not need cfpb do approval of the white house for regulations they issue. congress, congress designed independent agencies to be just that, independent. this bill would enshrine in law the ability for the white house to engage in political interference with those agencies. the consumer federation of america sent letter to house members today opposing this bill. the letter said, and i quote, h.r. 1009 will jeopardize the independence of agencies like the consumer product safety commission, the securities and exchange commission, the commodities futures trading commission, as well as other independent agencies because it will give the office of information and regulatory
5:17 pm
affairs the ability to review their significant rulemaking. authorizing oira to conduct its own analysis will not only add pressure from the executive branch and add time to the process and expense to that process but would also give special interests seeking to squash a safety measure, for example, yet another avenue to prevent a rule from ever being promulgated. indeed, one suspects that's the intent of the bill. a 2013 editorial in "the new york times" warned of the dangers of subjecting independent ags to era review -- independent agencies to oira review. i quote, subjecting independent agencies to executive regulatory review would not improve the rulemaking process. rather, it would ensure that regulated industries are as unregulated and deregulated as possible. it also said, and i quote,
5:18 pm
there's no question that making independent agencies less independent is a bad idea. my amendment would take care of that by repealing that portion of this bill. i urge all members to support the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i thank the chairman. i do appreciate working with my colleagues on the oversight and government reform committee. we have good debates. 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 shes and certainly the ranking member, -- ms. plaskett, and certainly the ranking member, mr. cummings. work with the minority on all things and unfortunately i have to oppose this amendment. i am trying to maximize
5:19 pm
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 e.p.a. or the consumer financial protection bureau to give the public notice about upcoming regulations. it removes existing requirements, for instance, for the e.p.a. to submit its rules to oira for review. in a march, 2015, hearing -- in fact, it was mr. connolly of virginia who said, quote, oira boasts an incredible, hardworking career staff. it is first rate when having quantitate tiff analysis. i happen agree to mr. connolly. i think there are good, hardworking, dedicated people who are dedicated to this country and they work hard. that's why i think this hardworking, dedicated core of people who work as career staff should offer a first rate, as
5:20 pm
recall it, analysis for all regulations, not just some of them. let's do it for all of them. that's fair. we need them to be effective in achieving their goals and we must keep sight, mr. chairman, that all of us in the federal government work for the american people. they pay the bills. they have to live under these regulations. we should maximize transparency. whether they're quote-unquote independent or part of the executive agency, if you're affected by a rule, you're affected by a rule. and people who are affected by those have every right to see what helped create that. and so i don't think there should be an exemption that is carved out under this bill. that's why i stand in opposition to this amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. connolly: i thank my friend from utah. i also enjoy working with him in finding common ground.
5:21 pm
however, i find it amusing to have myself quoted on the floor by the distinguished chairman because just a few minutes ago he was talking about how difficult it was to get compliance from oira to provide documents requested on a bipartisan basis by the committee. just a little bit before that, my friend from north carolina and i agreed on parts -- some real problems in terms of the process oira uses in the process of its mission. so it's hardly like our committee found our i found that oira is without problem. i believe the bottom line here, however, is independent means independent. we created these agencies for a reason. and to be independent of white house political interference for a reason. and i would submit respectfully now more than ever we want to preserve the independence of those organizations. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i would urge a no
5:22 pm
vote on this particular thing -- 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. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. connolly: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 115-21 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 3 by mr. young of iowa, amendment number 6 by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the
5:23 pm
first vote in this series. unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115-21 by the gentleman from iowa, mr. young, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 115-21 offered by mr. young of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 265 and the nays are 158. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment nment 6 printed in part -- amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 115-21 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 115-21 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.
5:50 pm
those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188. the nays are 234, and the mendment is not adopted.
5:55 pm
the question is on the amendment in the nature niche, as amended. -- in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1009 and pursuant to house resolution 156 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the eaker pro tempore:
5:56 pm
chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1009 and pursuant to house resolution 156 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
5:57 pm
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill 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 urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit
5:58 pm
at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to it in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. cartwright of pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1009 to the committee on oversight and government reform with ininstructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following new subsection -- e, exemption for the office of government ethics. the provisions of sections 3522, 3523 and 3524 of title 44, united states code, as added by subsection a do not apply to the office of government ethics. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the gentleman from pennsylvania deserves to be heard, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: thank you, madam speaker. this is the final amendment to
5:59 pm
the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage, as amended. this motion to recommit is to defend ethical conduct throughout our government in response to the watergate scandal, congress created the office of government ethics to protect against unethical behavior in the -- >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. cartwright: in response to the watergate scandal of the 1970's, congress created the office of government ethics to protect against unethical behavior in the executive branch. in 1988, president ronald reagan signed into law a bill to strengthen the office of government ethics by removing
6:00 pm
it from the office of personnel management and giving it greater independence from the white house. now, congress is attempting to undo this vision of a strong independent office of government ethics at a time when we need it more than ever. this bill would put the office of government ethics right back under the control of the white house. . and that is why this motion to recommit simply excludes o.g.e. from this bill. we appreciate the need for strong ethical guidelines, most strongly when people act unethically. every day we witness this white house struggle with honesty and credibility. we've heard the promises, we heard the promises last night, the ones we've been hearing all along. when you promise to create family-sustaining jobs by revitalizing american intr

14 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on