[Pages H1370-H1385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SEARCHING FOR AND CUTTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME
ACT

general leave

Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 150 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 998.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1421

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 998) to provide for the establishment of a process for the review
of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes, with Mr. Palmer in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. 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

[[Page H1371]]

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.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 21, 2017.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz: I write with respect to H.R. 998,
the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are
Unnecessarily Burdensome Act.'' As a result of your having
consulted with us on provisions within H.R. 998 that fall
within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Judiciary, I forego any further consideration of this bill so
that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for
consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 998 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our
committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as
this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may
address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our
committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or similar legislation and asks
that you support any such request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 998 and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of H.R. 998.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The
SCRUB Act would establish a $30 million commission of unelected--and I
emphasize that, unelected--bureaucrats to duplicate work that agencies
are already supposed to be doing. The bill would focus on the costs of
regulations while disregarding their benefits and protecting the most
vulnerable populations in our country, like the children in Flint,
Michigan.

{time} 1430

If there is any doubt about this, one need look no further than the
so-called CutGo provision in this bill. That provision would require
that, when an agency makes a new rule, it must offset the cost of that
new rule for the repeal of an existing rule. This applies even if the
new rule is in response to an imminent health or safety threat.
Agency compliance with this CutGo provision would also be subject to
judicial review, which prolongs the process even more. This would
inevitably result in lengthy delays, as both industry and nonprofit
groups routinely file challenges to agency decisions.
President Obama has already issued two executive orders to eliminate
unnecessary regulations. On January 18, 2011, he issued Executive Order
13563, requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing
rules. That executive order requires each agency to: ``periodically
review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any
such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or
repealed.''
In addition, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13610 on May
10, 2012, requiring agencies to report twice a year to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs on the status of their review
efforts. In November 2014, a report prepared for the Administrative
Conference of the United States highlighted the impact of these
mandated reviews, concluding: ``Implementing President Obama's
executive orders on retrospective review of regulations, agencies
identified tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and tens of
millions of hours of reduced paperwork and reporting requirements
through modifications of existing regulations.''
Congress has the authority and certainly the responsibility to
conduct oversight to review existing agency rules and to recommend or
mandate reforms, yet this bill would create a new commission, a new
commission that would cost taxpayers $30 million to do what agencies
and Congress are already supposed to be doing.
In addition, the commission's report to Congress on the rules it
recommends repealing would be subject to an up-or-down vote by the
Congress. Congress would not be allowed to vote on each regulation
individually, and this would usurp the authority of Congress.
One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it would
entrust this unelected commission with extraordinary and virtually
unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. Section 101(c)
of the bill states: ``The commission may issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any
evidence relating to the duties of the commission. The attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence may be required from any place
within the United States at any designated place of hearing within the
United States.''
Most agency inspectors general do not have such broad authority to
compel witness testimony. Yet this unelected commission would have this
authority. This means that it could compel an individual to testify on
any subject. For example, a schoolteacher could be compelled to testify
about education rules or a senior citizen could be compelled to testify
about Medicare or Social Security rules. This extraordinary subpoena
power is especially troubling because the commission's jurisdiction is
limitless.
There is no restriction on what regulations the commission can
review. Three prominent law professors with the Center for Progressive
Reform sent a letter opposing an identical bill in the last Congress.
The letter said this proposal would: ``create a convoluted,

[[Page H1372]]

complex, and potentially very expensive new bureaucracy to review
existing agency rules and make recommendations for the repeal or
weakening of those rules with little meaningful oversight,
transparency, or public accountability to ensure that these
recommendations do not subvert the public interest.''
In addition, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more
than 150 consumer, labor, and good-government groups, also oppose the
bill.
This bill could have dangerous consequences for the health and safety
of the American public; therefore, I strongly urge every Member to
oppose it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for allowing me this
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, America is home to some of the most creative,
innovative, inspirational people imaginable. When empowered, Americans
design and build in ways that change the world, and change it for the
better.
But far too often, our innovators are bogged down by red tape, thanks
to a government that thinks it knows better how to think, how to
believe, how to run their businesses, and how to live their lives. It
is not only making life more difficult. It costs us nearly $2 trillion
a year. That is about $15,000 a family. So we are rolling back these
regulations and offering much-needed relief to families and businesses
across the country.
Thanks to my good friend, Representative Jason Smith's leadership,
the SCRUB Act provides another powerful tool that gives control back to
the American people through their Representatives. This bill creates a
long, overdue process to identify ineffective, outdated, and
duplicative regulations for repeal, with priority being given to the
older, major, more expensive rules.
We made a promise to the American people. Their voice matters in our
government. We are going to do whatever we can to restore that voice
and put it at the center of every decision we make.
I am proud of Representative Smith's work to rein in government. I am
proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a very distinguished member of
our committee.

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, there are many troubling aspects of this bill, but most
pressing is that this legislation, without clear policy rationale,
caters to demands of my Republican colleagues to slash existing
regulations and muddy the process of passing new ones.
Congress already has a responsibility of reviewing existing rules and
mandating reform. Why delegate that to those not elected to do so?
This unsettling bill spends millions of taxpayer dollars to create a
hand-picked commission to do the job of Congress without
accountability. No, thank you.
This unelected and unaccountable commission, appointed by the
President and Congress, would submit regulatory changes without the
opportunity to amend the measure, taking regulatory review out of the
hands of the agency experts. This is counterproductive and an insult to
the democratic process.
To add insult to injury, this bill makes the regulatory process
transactional.
By forcing agencies to repeal regulations in order to adopt a new
one, we risk public health and safety.
Why have they prioritized costs over benefit? Why are American lives
on the chopping block?
I urge my colleagues to vote no against this bill.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on January 20, America witnessed
the end of the most regulation-happy Presidency in American history.
Under the Obama administration, the pages of the Code of Federal
Regulations reached the highest level in the history of our country.
The Obama administration issued 3,037 finalized regulations, which
means almost two new regulations were added each and every day on
American farmers, families, and small-business owners. Regulations from
the last administration alone cost taxpayers $873 billion. That is a
burden of over $12 million an hour added by the Obama White House on
the American taxpayer. Back home in Missouri alone, the cost of
complying with regulations just added by the Obama administration
totaled $19 billion, which is equal to over $9,000 in costs per person.
Regulations written by unelected bureaucrats in Washington are
suffocating the very farmers and small-business owners who we need to
hire and expand in order to get full workforce participation.
Today, we are considering a solution to this problem with the
Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome
Act, otherwise known as the SCRUB Act. The SCRUB Act's objective is to
reduce the overall cost of regulations by at least 15 percent.
With the passage of the SCRUB Act today, we are simply putting the
tools in place to support what President Trump has already started.
During his first full week in office, President Trump authored an
executive order for the purpose of reducing regulation and controlling
regulatory costs. The order is simple. For every new proposed
regulation, two existing ones must be taken off the books. This order
will help prioritize regulations truly in the best interest of the
American people and remove ones that are outdated, burdensome, and
costly.
And just last week, the President began a regulatory review task
force to review existing regulations. The SCRUB Act mirrors and
supports the President's actions, ensuring that our regulatory burdens
never again reach the heights that they are today.
The SCRUB Act makes sure that farmers, small-business owners, and
families impacted by Washington regulators have a seat at the table in
prioritizing which ones the Trump White House should remove. We must
help the President put an end to the Washington-knows-best mentality
that has polluted our Nation's Capital and plagued the American people
for the past 8 years.
Many of you voted in favor of this legislation last Congress.
However, with this new administration, the American people are calling
for us to change the way things are done in Washington. So it is my
hope that you will join me once again in helping put an end to the
Washington regulatory machine.
I also call on my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, who
seem lately more bent on obstruction, to reevaluate why their districts
and States sent them to Washington. I am hopeful they will consider
supporting the legislation, policies, laws, and nominations that will
help alleviate the burden of an oversized Federal Government. With the
SCRUB Act, we have a real opportunity to shrink the size of government
and get Washington off the backs of the American people.
I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing
this bill up today, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
SCRUB Act.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, a great leader in our Congress, and
someone who I admire greatly.
The only thing clever about this bill is the title. Everything else
about this bill is truly diabolical. The SCRUB Act isn't going to clean
anything up. Its toxic suds will just make people sicker, our
environment dirtier, and our products more dangerous.
Creating an unelected commission to oversee the entire regulatory
policy of the United States is undemocratic and unimaginably damaging.
Essentially, five people appointed by the President

[[Page H1373]]

would be able to sacrifice the health and safety of the American public
to the altar of big business.

{time} 1445

Say good-bye to protections from big banks, big polluters, and big
pharmaceutical companies; and hello to financial ruin, environmental
destruction, and unsafe food and drugs.
These Presidential pawns would also have unlimited subpoena power.
Now, think about this: they are going to have more subpoena power than
the inspectors general in this country.
Also, the SCRUB Act's senseless and dangerous regulatory cut-go
process would force agencies to choose between maintaining existing
protections and responding to new threats to our health and safety. For
example, in order to clean up the air, an agency might have to allow a
corporation to pollute our drinking water.
Talk about death panels--this, my friends, is a death panel. The only
thing the SCRUB Act washes away is commonsense governance. This is a
diabolical bill; and this, my friends, is what being drunk with power
delivers.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Farenthold).
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, you know what? We have got over 1
million pages of regulations. We have got so many laws nobody could
possibly know them. I would venture to say there are very few people
today who can't go a day without violating some law or some regulation.
It has gotten too complex.
Nobody wants a dirty environment. Nobody wants dirty water, but we
need a reasonable amount of regulation that we can understand, that we
can follow, and that will protect America and create jobs.
The SCRUB Act creates a commission that comes back to Congress with
recommendations of what to get rid of. You know what? I would like to
do it all here in Congress, too, but we sure face a lot of obstruction
in getting things done here. It doesn't move fast here.
Let's get a commission to do the basic work. Let's bring it back to
Congress, and let us decide and let us get rid of regulations. Let's
make the agencies pick and choose which regulations that they think are
important, and they will do it.
This is commonsense legislation to get the regulatory state under
control, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SCRUB Act poses real and significant dangers to the health and
welfare of the American public. By focusing predominantly on the cost
of the rules, the SCRUB Act's CutGo provision will repeal rules with
little regard for how they benefit and protect the American people.
The commission's virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses
or documents, combined with its uncircumscribed ability to review and
recommend repeal of any current rules, is an extraordinary grant of
power that could have tragic repercussions for the health and safety of
the American people.
The SCRUB Act is a waste of $30 million of hard-earned taxpayer money
for work that is already being done by Federal agencies.
I strongly urge every Member to oppose this act.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, some time ago, when I first got involved in this political
processing, I made it known that I felt that the silent killer of
American business was the regulatory regime that we have in place,
where over 50 years this Congress has ceded its authority to
unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats. Today we have 175,000 pages in
the Code of Federal Register that is evidence of that. It is time that
we, as a Congress, on behalf of our constituency, on behalf of the
future well-being of this country, take back that authority with
oversight and accountability through this SCRUB Act.
It has been said that there is approximately, on average, $20,000 a
year per employee of a manufacturer that is attributable just to
compliance with regulation. We need to make sure that we have our
manufacturers, our businesses, doing that which they do best within a
reasonable regulatory scheme, and that is what this act offers: a
reasonable regulatory scheme that allows Congress who has the
authority--actually has the only authority--to hold accountable these
unelectable bureaucrats. The SCRUB Act will allow us to do that.
It will allow due process through a discovery process. More
importantly, the review board, the commission, the five bipartisan
members who are appointed by the President must be confirmed by the
Senate. This, in and of itself, is a sense of due process, a sense of
accountability, and, more importantly, a strong sense of purpose that
the American people would want to see this Congress be able to go in
and take back the authority that they have delegated--at sometimes
recklessly--to these bureaucratic organizations.
We talk about the $30 million. I know the $30 million is always big
in any equation that you have, but when you allow the $30 million to be
spent over 5 years and you allow that to have the removal of certain
regulations, you will pay for this $30 million 10 times over in no time
at all.
So it is with a sense of advocacy on behalf of not only congressional
authority, but also a sense of advocacy on behalf of American business
and the future economic growth of this country, that I ask my
colleagues to wholeheartedly support the SCRUB Act.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R.
998, the SCRUB Act.
This ill-advised bill would require agencies to undertake a
regulatory cut-go process to repeal rules identified by the Commission,
with little to no consideration of the benefits, prior to issuing any
new rule.
The SCRUB Act's regulatory cut-go procedures are unsafe, dangerous,
and would tie the hands of agencies responding to public health crises
requiring timely regulatory responses. In fact, this bill lacks any
mechanism for consideration of public health and safety, thus leaving
no option for agencies to issue emergency rules to protect the public
and environment from imminent harm.
The bill's proponents may claim that the title I of the H.R. 1155
would allow the Commission to consider whether the costs of the bill
are not justified by the benefit to society. But as witnesses testified
during the Judiciary Committee's consideration of a previous version of
this bill, the catch-all language of subsection (h)(2)(I) would allow
the Commission to completely disregard any benefit of regulation.
In both Republican and Democratic administrations, the benefits of
our system of regulatory protections have made our country safer,
stronger, healthier, and cleaner. While consideration of the costs of
regulations is important, there is overwhelming consensus that the
benefits of regulation vastly exceed the costs.
The Government Accountability Office has observed that these benefits
``include, among other things, ensuring that workplaces, air travel,
foods, and drugs are safe; that the nation's air, water and land are
not polluted; and that the appropriate amount of taxes is collected.''
This evidence overwhelmingly refutes the assertion that regulatory
costs are burdensome, eliminate jobs, or harm our economic
competitiveness. We should be empowering our agencies, not hindering
them, to take the steps needed to protect our environment, consumer
products, public health, and safety.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 998

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act'' or as the
``SCRUB Act''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

Sec. 101. In general.

TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO

Sec. 201. Cut-go procedures.
Sec. 202. Applicability.
Sec. 203. OIRA certification of cost calculations.

TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES

Sec. 301. Plan for future review.

[[Page H1374]]

TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

Sec. 401. Judicial review.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Effective date.

TITLE I--RETROSPECTIVE REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

SEC. 101. IN GENERAL.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission, to
be known as the ``Retrospective Regulatory Review
Commission'', that shall review rules and sets of rules in
accordance with specified criteria to determine if a rule or
set of rules should be repealed to eliminate or reduce the
costs of regulation to the economy. The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 5 years and 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act or 5 years after the date by
which all Commission members' terms have commenced, whichever
is later.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 members
who shall be appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. Each member shall be appointed not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Term.--The term of each member shall commence upon the
member's confirmation by the Senate and shall extend to the
date that is 5 years and 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act or that is 5 years after the date by which all
members have been confirmed by the Senate, whichever is
later.
(3) Appointment.--The members of the Commission shall be
appointed as follows:
(A) Chair.--The President shall appoint as the Chair of the
Commission an individual with expertise and experience in
rulemaking, such as past Administrators of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, past chairmen of the
Administrative Conference of the United States, and other
individuals with similar expertise and experience in
rulemaking affairs and the administration of regulatory
reviews.
(B) Candidate list of members.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the
Minority Leader of the Senate shall each present to the
President a list of candidates to be members of the
Commission. Such candidates shall be individuals learned in
rulemaking affairs and, preferably, administration of
regulatory reviews. The President shall appoint 2 members of
the Commission from each list provided under this
subparagraph, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (C).
(C) Resubmission of candidate.--The President may request
from the presenter of the list under subparagraph (B) a new
list of one or more candidates if the President--
(i) determines that any candidate on the list presented
pursuant to subparagraph (B) does not meet the qualifications
specified in such subparagraph to be a member of the
Commission; and
(ii) certifies that determination to the congressional
officials specified in subparagraph (B).
(c) Powers and Authorities of the Commission.--
(1) Meetings.--The Commission may meet when, where, and as
often as the Commission determines appropriate, except that
the Commission shall hold public meetings not less than twice
each year. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to
the public.
(2) Hearings.--In addition to meetings held under paragraph
(1), the Commission may hold hearings to consider issues of
fact or law relevant to the Commission's work. Any hearing
held by the Commission shall be open to the public.
(3) Access to information.--The Commission may secure
directly from any agency information and documents necessary
to enable the Commission to carry out this Act. Upon request
of the Chair of the Commission, the head of that agency shall
furnish that information or document to the Commission as
soon as possible, but not later than two weeks after the date
on which the request was made.
(4) Subpoenas.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas
requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of any evidence relating to the duties of the
Commission. The attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence may be required from any place within the United
States at any designated place of hearing within the United
States.
(B) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to
obey a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A), the Commission
may apply to a United States district court for an order
requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give
testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter
under investigation. The application may be made within the
judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where
that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any
failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the
court as civil contempt.
(C) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission
shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued
by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
(D) Service of process.--All process of any court to which
application is made under subparagraph (B) may be served in
the judicial district in which the person required to be
served resides or may be found.
(d) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
(1) Pay.--
(A) Members.--Each member, other than the Chair of the
Commission, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which the member is engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(B) Chair.--The Chair shall be paid for each day referred
to in subparagraph (A) at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable
for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of
title 5, United States Code.
(2) Travel expenses.--Members shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(e) Director of Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall appoint a Director.
(2) Pay.--The Director shall be paid at the rate of basic
pay payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(f) Staff.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director,
with the approval of the Commission, may appoint, fix the pay
of, and terminate additional personnel.
(2) Limitations on appointment.--The Director may make such
appointments without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without
regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so
appointed may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of
basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(3) Agency assistance.--Following consultation with and
upon request of the Chair of the Commission, the head of any
agency may detail any of the personnel of that agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out the
duties of the Commission under this Act.
(4) GAO and oira assistance.--The Comptroller General of
the United States and the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall provide assistance,
including the detailing of employees, to the Commission in
accordance with an agreement entered into with the
Commission.
(5) Assistance from other parties.--Congress, the States,
municipalities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and local
governments may provide assistance, including the detailing
of employees, to the Commission in accordance with an
agreement entered into with the Commission.
(g) Other Authority.--
(1) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure by
contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or
intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Property.--The Commission may lease space and acquire
personal property to the extent funds are available.
(h) Duties of the Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a review of
the Code of Federal Regulations to identify rules and sets of
rules that collectively implement a regulatory program that
should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to the
economy. The Commission shall give priority in the review to
rules or sets of rules that are major rules or include major
rules, have been in effect more than 15 years, impose
paperwork burdens or unfunded mandates that could be reduced
substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory
effectiveness, impose disproportionately high costs on
entities that qualify as small entities within the meaning of
section 601(6) of title 5, United States Code, or could be
strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory
costs. The Commission shall have as a goal of the Commission
to achieve a reduction of at least 15 percent in the
cumulative costs of Federal regulation with a minimal
reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation.
(2) Nature of review.--To identify which rules and sets of
rules should be repealed to lower the cost of regulation to
the economy, the Commission shall apply the following
criteria:
(A) Whether the original purpose of the rule or set of
rules was achieved, and the rule or set of rules could be
repealed without significant recurrence of adverse effects or
conduct that the rule or set of rules was intended to prevent
or reduce.
(B) Whether the implementation, compliance, administration,
enforcement, imposition of unfunded mandates, or other costs
of the rule or set of rules to the economy are not justified
by the benefits to society within the United States produced
by the expenditure of those costs.
(C) Whether the rule or set of rules has been rendered
unnecessary or obsolete, taking into consideration the length
of time since the rule was made and the degree to which
technology, economic conditions, market practices, or other
relevant factors have changed in the subject area affected by
the rule or set of rules.

[[Page H1375]]

(D) Whether the rule or set of rules is ineffective at
achieving the purposes of the rule or set of rules.
(E) Whether the rule or set of rules overlaps, duplicates,
or conflicts with other Federal rules, and to the extent
feasible, with State and local governmental rules.
(F) Whether the rule or set of rules has excessive
compliance costs, imposes unfunded mandates, or is otherwise
excessively burdensome, as compared to alternatives that--
(i) specify performance objectives rather than conduct or
manners of compliance;
(ii) establish economic incentives to encourage desired
behavior;
(iii) provide information upon which choices can be made by
the public;
(iv) incorporate other innovative alternatives rather than
agency actions that specify conduct or manners of compliance;
or
(v) could in other ways substantially lower costs without
significantly undermining effectiveness.
(G) Whether the rule or set of rules inhibits innovation in
or growth of the United States economy, such as by impeding
the introduction or use of safer or equally safe technology
that is newer or more efficient than technology required by
or permissible under the rule or set of rules.
(H) Whether or not the rule or set of rules harms
competition within the United States economy or the
international economic competitiveness of enterprises or
entities based in the United States.
(I) Whether or not the rule or set of rules limits or
prevents an agency from applying new or emerging technologies
to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government.
(J) Whether the rule or set of rules harms wage growth,
including wage growth for minimum wage and part-time workers.
(K) Such other criteria as the Commission devises to
identify rules and sets of rules that can be repealed to
eliminate or reduce unnecessarily burdensome costs to the
United States economy.
(3) Methodology for review.--The Commission shall establish
a methodology for conducting the review (including an overall
review and discrete reviews of portions of the Code of
Federal Regulations), identifying rules and sets of rules,
and classifying rules under this subsection and publish the
terms of the methodology in the Federal Register and on the
website of the Commission. The Commission may propose and
seek public comment on the methodology before the methodology
is established.
(4) Classification of rules and sets of rules.--
(A) In general.--After completion of any review of rules or
sets of rules under paragraph (2), the Commission shall
classify each rule or set of rules identified in the review
to qualify for recommended repeal as either a rule or set of
rules--
(i) on which immediate action to repeal is recommended; or
(ii) that should be eligible for repeal under regulatory
cut-go procedures under title II.
(B) Decisions by majority.--Each decision by the Commission
to identify a rule or set of rules for classification under
this paragraph, and each decision whether to classify the
rule or set of rules under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
(A), shall be made by a simple majority vote of the
Commission. No such vote shall take place until after all
members of the Commission have been confirmed by the Senate.
(5) Initiation of review by other persons.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may also conduct a review
under paragraph (2) of, and, if appropriate, classify under
paragraph (4), any rule or set of rules that is submitted for
review to the Commission by--
(i) the President;
(ii) a Member of Congress;
(iii) any officer or employee of a Federal, State, local or
tribal government, or regional governmental body; or
(iv) any member of the public.
(B) Form of submission.--A submission to the Commission
under this paragraph shall--
(i) identify the specific rule or set of rules submitted
for review;
(ii) provide a statement of evidence to demonstrate that
the rule or set of rules qualifies to be identified for
repeal under the criteria listed in paragraph (2); and
(iii) such other information as the submitter believes may
be helpful to the Commission's review, including a statement
of the submitter's interest in the matter.
(C) Public availability.--The Commission shall make each
submission received under this paragraph available on the
website of the Commission as soon as possible, but not later
than 1 week after the date on which the submission was
received.
(i) Notices and Reports of the Commission.--
(1) Notices of and reports on activities.--The Commission
shall publish, in the Federal Register and on the website of
the Commission--
(A) notices in advance of all public meetings, hearings,
and classifications under subsection (h) informing the public
of the basis, purpose, and procedures for the meeting,
hearing, or classification; and
(B) reports after the conclusion of any public meeting,
hearing, or classification under subsection (h) summarizing
in detail the basis, purpose, and substance of the meeting,
hearing, or classification.
(2) Annual reports to congress.--Each year, beginning on
the date that is one year after the date on which all
Commission members have been confirmed by the Senate, the
Commission shall submit a report simultaneously to each House
of Congress detailing the activities of the Commission for
the previous year, and listing all rules and sets of rules
classified under subsection (h) during that year. For each
rule or set of rules so listed, the Commission shall--
(A) identify the agency that made the rule or set of rules;
(B) identify the annual cost of the rule or set of rules to
the United States economy and the basis upon which the
Commission identified that cost;
(C) identify whether the rule or set of rules was
classified under clause (i) or clause (ii) of subsection
(h)(4)(A);
(D) identify the criteria under subsection (h)(2) that
caused the classification of the rule or set of rules and the
basis upon which the Commission determined that those
criteria were met;
(E) for each rule or set of rules listed under the criteria
set forth in subparagraph (B), (D), (F), (G), (H), or (I) of
subsection (h)(2), or other criteria established by the
Commission under subparagraph (I) of such subsection under
which the Commission evaluated alternatives to the rule or
set of rules that could lead to lower regulatory costs,
identify alternatives to the rule or set of rules that the
Commission recommends the agency consider as replacements for
the rule or set of rules and the basis on which the
Commission rests the recommendations, and, in identifying
such alternatives, emphasize alternatives that will achieve
regulatory effectiveness at the lowest cost and with the
lowest adverse impacts on jobs;
(F) for each rule or set of rules listed under the criteria
set forth in subsection (h)(2)(E), the other Federal, State,
or local governmental rules that the Commission found the
rule or set of rules to overlap, duplicate, or conflict with,
and the basis for the findings of the Commission; and
(G) in the case of each set of rules so listed, analyze
whether Congress should also consider repeal of the statutory
authority implemented by the set of rules.
(3) Final report.--Not later than the date on which the
Commission members' appointments expire, the Commission shall
submit a final report simultaneously to each House of
Congress summarizing all activities and recommendations of
the Commission, including a list of all rules or sets of
rules the Commission classified under clause (i) of
subsection (h)(4)(A) for immediate action to repeal, a
separate list of all rules or sets of rules the Commission
classified under clause (ii) of subsection (h)(4)(A) for
repeal, and with regard to each rule or set of rules listed
on either list, the information described in subparagraphs
(A) through (F) of subsection (h)(2). This report may be
included in the final annual report of the Commission under
paragraph (2) and may include the Commission's recommendation
whether the Commission should be reauthorized by Congress.
(j) Repeal of Regulations; Congressional Consideration of
Commission Reports.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)--
(A) the head of each agency with authority to repeal a rule
or set of rules classified by the Commission under subsection
(h)(4)(A)(i) for immediate action to repeal and newly listed
as such in an annual or final report of the Commission under
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (i) shall repeal the rule
or set of rules as recommended by the Commission within 60
days after the enactment of a joint resolution under
paragraph (2) for approval of the recommendations of the
Commission in the report; and
(B) the head of each agency with authority to repeal a rule
or set of rules classified by the Commission under subsection
(h)(4)(A)(ii) for repeal and newly listed as such in an
annual or final report of the Commission under paragraph (2)
or (3) of subsection (i) shall repeal the rule or set of
rules as recommended by the Commission pursuant to section
201, following the enactment of a joint resolution under
paragraph (2) for approval of the recommendations of the
Commission in the report.
(2) Congressional approval.--
(A) In general.--No head of an agency described in
paragraph (1) shall be required by this Act to carry out a
repeal listed by the Commission in a report transmitted to
Congress under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (i) until a
joint resolution is enacted, in accordance with the
provisions of subparagraph (B), approving such
recommendations of the Commission for repeal.
(B) Terms of the resolution.--For purposes of paragraph
(A), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint
resolution which is introduced after the date on which the
Commission transmits to the Congress under paragraph (2) or
(3) of subsection (i) the report containing the
recommendations to which the resolution pertains, and--
(i) which does not have a preamble;
(ii) the matter after the resolving clause of which is only
as follows: ``That Congress approves the recommendations for
repeal of the Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission as
submitted by the Commission on ____'', the blank space being
filled in with the appropriate date; and
(iii) the title of which is as follows: ``Approving
recommendations for repeal of the Retrospective Regulatory
Review Commission.''.
(3) Reissuance of rules.--
(A) No substantially similar rule to be reissued.--A rule
that is repealed under

[[Page H1376]]

paragraph (1) or section 201 may not be reissued in
substantially the same form, and a new rule that is
substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued,
unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by
a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution
approving the Commission's recommendation to repeal the
original rule.
(B) Agency to ensure avoidance of similar defects.--An
agency, in making any new rule to implement statutory
authority previously implemented by a rule repealed under
paragraph (1) or section 201, shall ensure that the new rule
does not result in the same adverse effects of the repealed
rule that caused the Commission to recommend to Congress the
latter's repeal and will not result in new adverse effects of
the kind described in the criteria specified in or under
subsection (h).
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to the Commission to carry out
this Act, not to exceed $30,000,000.
(2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until the earlier
of the date that such sums are expended or the date of the
termination of the Commission.
(l) Website.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish a public
website that--
(A) uses current information technology to make records
available on the website;
(B) provides information in a standard data format; and
(C) receives and publishes public comments.
(2) Publishing of information.--Any information required to
be made available on the website established pursuant to this
Act shall be published in a timely manner and shall be
accessible by the public on the website at no cost.
(3) Record of public meetings and hearings.--All records of
public meetings and hearings shall be published on the
website as soon as possible, but not later than 1 week after
the date on which such public meeting or hearing occurred.
(4) Public comments.--The Commission shall publish on the
website all public comments and submissions.
(5) Notices.--The Commission shall publish on the website
notices of all public meetings and hearings at least one week
before the date on which such public meeting or hearing
occurs.
(m) Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the Commission shall be subject to the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(2) Advisory committee management officer.--The Commission
shall not be subject to the control of any Advisory Committee
Management Officer designated under section 8(b)(1) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(3) Subcommittee.--Any subcommittee of the Commission shall
be treated as the Commission for purposes of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(4) Charter.--The enactment of the SCRUB Act shall be
considered to meet the requirements of the Commission under
section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.).
(n) Definition.--In this section, the term ``unfunded
mandate'' has the meaning given the term ``Federal mandate''
in section 421(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658(6)).

TITLE II--REGULATORY CUT-GO

SEC. 201. CUT-GO PROCEDURES.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 101(j)(2)(A)
or section 202, an agency, when the agency makes a new rule,
shall repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency classified
by the Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii), such that
the annual costs of the new rule to the United States economy
is offset by such repeals, in an amount equal to or greater
than the cost of the new rule, based on the regulatory cost
reductions of repeal identified by the Commission.
(b) Alternative Procedure.--An agency may, alternatively,
repeal rules or sets of rules of that agency classified by
the Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) prior to the
time specified in subsection (a). If the agency so repeals
such a rule or set of rules and thereby reduces the annual,
inflation-adjusted cost of the rule or set of rules to the
United States economy, the agency may thereafter apply the
reduction in regulatory costs, based on the regulatory cost
reductions of repeal identified by the Commission, to meet,
in whole or in part, the regulatory cost reduction required
under subsection (a) of this section to be made at the time
the agency promulgates a new rule.
(c) Achievement of Full Net Cost Reductions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of paragraph
(2), an agency may offset the costs of a new rule or set of
rules by repealing a rule or set of rules listed by the
Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) that implement the
same statutory authority as the new rule or set of rules.
(2) Limitation.--When using the authority provided in
paragraph (1), the agency must achieve a net reduction in
costs imposed by the agency's body of rules (including the
new rule or set of rules) that is equal to or greater than
the cost of the new rule or set of rules to be promulgated,
including, whenever necessary, by repealing additional rules
of the agency listed by the Commission under section
101(h)(4)(A)(ii).

SEC. 202. APPLICABILITY.

An agency shall no longer be subject to the requirements of
sections 201 and 203 beginning on the date that there is no
rule or set of rules of the agency classified by the
Commission under section 101(h)(4)(A)(ii) that has not been
repealed such that all regulatory cost reductions identified
by the Commission to be achievable through repeal have been
achieved.

SEC. 203. OIRA CERTIFICATION OF COST CALCULATIONS.

The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget
shall review and certify the accuracy of agency
determinations of the costs of new rules under section 201.
The certification shall be included in the administrative
record of the relevant rulemaking by the agency promulgating
the rule, and the Administrator shall transmit a copy of the
certification to Congress when it transmits the certification
to the agency.

TITLE III--RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF NEW RULES

SEC. 301. PLAN FOR FUTURE REVIEW.

When an agency makes a rule, the agency shall include in
the final issuance of such rule a plan for the review of such
rule by not later than 10 years after the date such rule is
made. Such a review, in the case of a major rule, shall be
substantially similar to the review by the Commission under
section 101(h). In the case of a rule other than a major
rule, the agency's plan for review shall include other
procedures and standards to enable the agency to determine
whether to repeal or amend the rule to eliminate unnecessary
regulatory costs to the economy. Whenever feasible, the
agency shall include a proposed plan for review of a proposed
rule in its notice of proposed rulemaking and shall receive
public comment on the plan.

TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Immediate Repeals.--Agency compliance with section
101(j) of this Act shall be subject to judicial review under
chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Cut-Go Procedures.--Agency compliance with title II of
this Act shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7
of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Plans for Future Review.--Agency compliance with
section 301 shall be subject to judicial review under chapter
7 of title 5, United States Code.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission established under
section 101.
(3) Major rule.--The term ``major rule'' means any rule
that the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs determines is likely to impose--
(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or more,
adjusted annually for inflation;
(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, local, or tribal
government agencies, or geographic regions;
(C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets; or
(D) significant impacts on multiple sectors of the economy.
(4) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given that
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Set of rules.--The term ``set of rules'' means a set of
rules that collectively implements a regulatory authority of
an agency.

SEC. 502. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in House Report 115-20. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cummings

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), I offer amendment No. 1.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 5, line 16, insert after ``reviews.'' the following:
``During the two-year period prior

[[Page H1377]]

to the inclusion of an individual on a list of candidates
under this subparagraph, the individual may not have been a
registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).''.
Page 6, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
(4) Financial disclosure reports of members.--Each member
of the Commission shall file the financial disclosure reports
required under title I of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) in accordance with the requirements of
such title.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the maker of
the amendment.
Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, my amendment today is meant to address only
one of several troubling provisions in the bill.
As my colleagues have pointed out, the SCRUB Act is a radical
approach to deregulation and would prioritize cost savings through
repeal of rules without considering their public benefit. The
underlying bill would also prohibit agencies from making any new
rules--even in the case of an imminent threat to public health or
safety--unless the cost is offset by repealing an existing rule.
We have heard often on this floor my Republican friends rail against
regulations promulgated by faceless bureaucrats. Well, this bill seeks
to accomplish all of this through the work of an unelected commission--
faceless--with virtually unlimited subpoena authority and jurisdiction
over every existing regulation.
This body would work in the shadows to roll back environmental and
workplace protections, putting dollars and cents over public health.
The legislation grants so much in the way of authority, but comes with
so little in the way of oversight, transparency, or public
accountability.
President Trump and my friends on the other side of the aisle like to
talk a lot about draining the swamp. Madam Chair, what the Republicans
are proposing today makes a swamp look like the Hanging Gardens of
Babylon, all at the cost of $30 million to the American taxpayer.
My amendment today would bring a modicum of transparency and ethical
oversight to the shadow bureaucracy by requiring commission members to
follow the same financial disclosure rules as Members of Congress,
congressional staff, or any Federal official.
My amendment would also ensure that commission members don't come in
through the ``revolving door'' by inserting a requirement that the
individual must not have been a registered lobbyist at any point during
the previous 2 years. Congress not only has the authority, but the duty
to review existing regulations and, when necessary, to mandate reforms.
But I understand why Republicans want to delegate this work. Because
who wants to be the one to recommend rolling back rules governing clean
air, clean water, food safety, workplace protections, domestic
violence, victim protections, and many other rules that are in place to
keep Americans healthy and safe?
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment simply to
give transparency, openness, and clarity to the people who will be
making the decisions under the SCRUB Act.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, although I am not in opposition to the
amendment, I do wish to speak in support and further explain my
support, because I believe that the gentleman from Virginia offers some
very good merit to his amendment.
The amendment clarifies that the commissioners are covered by the
Ethics in Government Act, which is in line with current law.
Commissioners should be free from financial conflict as much as any
other Federal employee should. The Beyer amendment prohibits the
appointment of a commissioner to the retrospective regulatory review
commission who has been a registered lobbyist in the previous 2 years.
Ensuring commissioners are not lobbyists with financial interests in
the commission's work is in line with the commission's goal of
identifying wasteful or unfair regulations. The 2-year ban allows
genuine experts with some past lobbying experience to contribute their
knowledge to the commission. This provision is very similar to the
President's 2-year ban on former lobbyists working in the
administration.
For those reasons, I do support the amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I have no further comments. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1500

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 14, after line 22, insert the following new
subparagraph (and redesignate the following subparagraph
accordingly):
(K) Whether, and the extent to which, the repeal of the
rule or set of rules would impact public health.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this
amendment to H.R. 998. As drafted, the SCRUB Act requires Federal
agencies to repeal existing regulations to offset the cost of new
regulations. The bill also authorizes up to $30 million for a new
commission to review the Code of Federal Regulations and recommend
regulatory repeals.
This commonsense amendment ensures the impacts of public health,
including the costs and benefits associated with those impacts, are
considered under processes established by the SCRUB Act. This, I
believe, is a reasonable improvement to the bill. It ensures that
Federal agencies appropriately consider the true costs and benefits of
Federal rules with an eye towards saving hard-earned taxpayer money.
As a member of the California State Senate, I worked with a
Republican administration to help enact this legislation as the first-
ever health act of its type in the country in a State. It was based on
the sensible premise that understanding the impacts of government
actions on public health not only saves lives, but saves money.
This effort helped provide California State agencies with the
direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex
environmental, financial, and sustainability factors that contribute to
poor health and inequities. Over the 6 years of its existence, this
policy has resulted in increased collaboration across large State
agencies, saving taxpayer money while promoting improved public health
throughout the Nation's largest State.
Today, U.S. taxpayers face a growing burden of largely preventable
chronic illnesses. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, and diabetes are but
a few of the myriad health issues that millions of Americans face every
day that also drive many of their financial and professional decisions.
In many of our most disadvantaged communities, fewer resources are
available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the
levels of chronic illness in these communities and shorter life
expectancies. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots of
government policies on public health in our economy.
If the goal of this legislation is eliminating existing regulations
to pay for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to
understand the impacts of these decisions on our Nation's public
health? For example, eliminating the Department of Labor's silica rule
might save an employer the expense of

[[Page H1378]]

purchasing mitigation equipment, but does that employer truly save
money if his health insurance premiums go up due to associated
respiratory illness?
When the majority pushed to eliminate the Department of the
Interior's stream protection rule, thereby allowing mountaintop mining
companies to dump potentially toxic mining debris in nearby streams,
there was little consideration to the costs associated with mitigating
the inevitable drinking water contamination and healthcare costs of
those who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water.
This amendment ensures that Federal agencies, at the very least,
consider the health impacts and costs associated with eliminating a
regulation. This amendment will help to go a long way in preventing
unnecessary healthcare costs, which I hope we can agree is a positive
improvement to the bill.
If my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating Federal
regulations, I hope that they agree that at least we can make sure that
this independent commission will at least consider the benefits of
public health as they do their analysis. I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 998, the
SCRUB Act.
As currently drafted, the SCRUB Act requires federal agencies to
repeal existing regulations to offset the cost of new regulations. The
bill also authorizes up to $30 million for a new commission to review
the Code of Federal Regulations and recommend regulatory repeals.
This commonsense amendment ensures that impacts to public health,
including the costs associated with those impacts, are considered under
processes established by the SCRUB Act. This is a reasonable
improvement to the bill ensures that federal agencies appropriately
consider the true costs and benefits of federal rules with an eye
towards saving hard-earned taxpayer money.
As a member of the California State Senate, I helped to enact
legislation focused on promoting public health throughout the state
while saving taxpayer dollars. Based on the sensible premise that
understanding the impacts of government actions on public health not
only saves lives, but saves money.
This effort helped provide California state agencies with the
direction they needed to effectively collaborate on the complex
environmental, financial, and sustainability factors that contribute to
poor health and inequities. Over six years of existence, this policy
has resulted in increased collaboration across state agencies, saving
taxpayers money while promoting improved public health throughout the
state.
Today, U.S. taxpayers face a growing burden of largely preventable
chronic illnesses. Heart disease, stroke, obesity, and diabetes are but
a few of the myriad health issues that millions of Americans face every
day that also drive many of their financial and professional decisions.
In many of our most disadvantaged communities, fewer resources are
available to benefit health outcomes that are clearly seen in the
levels of chronic illness and shorter life expectancies. It doesn't
take a genius to connect the dots of government policies on public
health and our economy.
If the goal of this legislation is to eliminate existing regulations
to pay for new regulations, doesn't it make business sense to
understand the impacts of those decisions on public health?
For example, eliminating the Department of Labor's Silica Rule might
save an employer the expense of purchasing mitigation equipment, but
does that employer truly save money if his health insurance premiums go
up due to associated respiratory illness?
When the Majority pushed to eliminate the Interior Department's
Stream Protection rule, thereby allowing mountaintop mining companies
to dump potentially toxic mining debris in nearby streams, there was
little consideration to the costs associated with mitigating the
inevitable drinking water contamination and health care costs of those
who will be sickened after drinking contaminated water.
This amendment ensures that federal agencies, at the very least,
consider the health impacts and costs associated with eliminating a
regulation. This effort will go a long way in preventing unnecessary
health care costs, which I hope we can agree is a positive improvement
to the bill.
If my colleagues across the aisle insist on eliminating federal
regulations, it only makes sense to ensure that removing such rules
does not harm the public.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``YES'' on this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Chair, this commission that we have here in the SCRUB
Act is established to clear out old and unnecessary regulations. It
currently requires the commission to consider whether the rule could be
repealed without significant adverse effects, whether the rule is
unnecessary, whether the costs are justified by the benefits, and
certain other criteria.
I think that the consideration of public health certainly fits within
whether the rule would have significant adverse effects, whether it is
necessary, and whether the benefits justify the cost. Health, safety,
and welfare of the American people is foremost to what we do, and I
laud my colleague from California for filing this amendment.
This amendment clarifies that the commission should consider the
impact on public health of repealing any regulation. I think that,
again, my colleague from California gave fine examples of that
particular balance.
We agree that we want regulations that are necessary to protect
public health. I am excited to see one of my Democratic colleagues
working with us to improve regulatory reform legislation. I look
forward to future opportunities to continue this work.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I look forward to, in the future,
working on true bipartisan regulation. I think it is one of those
areas, at least in my experience in local and State government, that we
should be working in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, this bill I do
not believe accomplishes that.
So regulatory oversight is probably the most important thing we could
do, and I hope that we can do it in a bipartisan way in the future. I
would encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. McSally

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 115-20.
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 14, after line 22, insert the following new
subparagraph (and redesignate the subsequent subparagraph
accordingly):
(K) Whether the rule or set of rules is in full compliance
with the requirements of section 801(a)(1)(A) of title 5,
United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Ms. McSally) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 998, the
SCRUB Act, and urge adoption of my amendment.
The Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission created in the SCRUB
Act is an important tool to help Congress reclaim its constitutional
role of serving as a check to the executive branch and will help bring
back jobs and opportunity to hardworking Americans.
In 2016 alone, the Obama administration added 97,110 pages to the
Federal Register. That is over 75 times more than the Bible, without
any of the good news. These rules and regulations accumulate with no
relief and touch every aspect of life all the way down to recordkeeping
for contact lenses, vending machine food labeling, and walk-in freezer
testing.
Of the over 3,500 final regulations issued in 2016, 34 will cost over
$100 million, and 105 are deemed to have significant impacts on small
business. We

[[Page H1379]]

need to reduce this regulatory burden on American households and small
businesses, which costs the economy over $2 trillion per year.
The Congressional Review Act gives Congress 60 legislative days to
introduce and pass into law a disapproval resolution overturning a rule
or a regulation. Once agency actions are overturned using this process,
agencies are unable to reissue, substantially in the same form, a
regulation or guidance in the future.
A little known provision in the Congressional Review Act requires
Federal agencies to submit to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office a report on the rule or regulation. The 60-day
clock for congressional action begins either when the rule is published
or when Congress receives this report, whichever comes later.
Independent studies have shown many rules since 1996 have been
implemented without this report, often due to Federal agencies' push to
hastily implement new rules. This means that there are still many rules
and regulations that may still be eligible for Congress to overturn
using the Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions process.
My amendment to the SCRUB Act requires the Retrospective Regulatory
Review Commission to consider for removal rules and regulations for
which Congress did not receive the report as required by the
Congressional Review Act. According to GAO, approximately 29 percent of
final rules failed to submit required reports in 2013. This prudent
step will help give Congress the opportunity to, where appropriate,
make use of the Congressional Review Act disapproval process to
expedite the rollback of flawed rules and regulations that are choking
our economy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, again I claim the time in opposition, but
I will not oppose this amendment even though it does nothing to change
the substance of the SCRUB Act or reduce the danger that it poses to
the health and safety of the American public.
This amendment would add another criterion to identify which rules
the commission would recommend for repeal, specifically, whether an
agency has complied with the requirements of title 5 U.S.C., section
801(a)(1)(A).
That section requires agencies, prior to promulgating a rule, to
submit to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General a report
containing a copy of the rule; a concise general statement relating to
the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and the proposed
effective date of the rule.
So this amendment would require this unelected commission to report
to Congress on what information Congress has or has not received. This
just underscores the point that Congress should do its own job rather
than passing this bill to set up a commission to do our job for us.
Like the other criteria in the bill, Representative McSally's
amendment does nothing to address the SCRUB Act's focus on the costs of
the rules. The amendment fails to make sense of the CutGo provision,
which would result in the repeal of rules with little regard for how
these rules have benefited and protected the American public.
The amendment fails to address the fact that agencies are already
doing a retrospective review of regulations.
This amendment fails to reduce the $30 million price tag that the
American public would be responsible for paying to create the unelected
commission under this bill.
The amendment fails to reduce the commission's virtually unlimited
authority to subpoena witnesses or documents.
This amendment is nothing more than a window dressing, and it is
nice. It does not address any of the SCRUB Act's failings and dangers
that it poses to the health and safety of all Americans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, again, my amendment is simple under the
SCRUB Act. Right now, these agencies are not complying with the law.
They have not submitted necessary reports to Congress and the GAO. So
this amendment is simply asking, among other things that are being
reviewed in this act, that we take a look at which reports have not
been submitted, therefore, which are not in compliance with the
Congressional Review Act so that we can decide whether any of those
would be appropriate for disapproval resolutions or, quite frankly,
whether the rule is even one that should be enforced because it hasn't
complied with the law.

This is a good amendment. I appreciate our colleagues supporting it.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Chair, the cumulative cost of regulations in our
country is now at the tune of $2 trillion, and it costs us $60 billion
just to enforce those regulations every year. With all due respect,
that is not window dressing. When you take a look at those numbers, it
is clear to see that the bureaucratic state of our Federal Government
is threatening our job creators and killing our economy.
Today, we have an opportunity to reverse course on the stifling
regulations flowing from Washington by passing H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act,
as amended here by my colleague, Congresswoman Martha McSally.
The SCRUB Act will establish a commission to review existing Federal
regulations and identify for Congress which of those place unnecessary
costs on our economy. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. McSally) will take the SCRUB Act a step further by
requiring this commission to consider for removal all regulations
dating back to 1996 that did not comply with the law that states that
there must be an accompanying report to Congress. According to the GAO,
that is almost 30 percent of final rules.
All of this is done in a manner consistent with my colleague's
standalone bill, the Require CRA Compliance Act, that I was also proud
to join her in sponsoring.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.

{time} 1515

Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Chair, in closing, we owe this to the American
people. We owe this to my children and your grandchildren. We owe this
to our local job creators to break the chains of these burdensome
regulations and, once again, unleash the spirit of American innovation
and enterprise that made this country the envy of the world by passing
the SCRUB Act and the McSally amendment.
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Arrington for his
support. I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz and Mr. Smith for their hard
work on this important legislation. I want to urge the passage of my
amendment and encourage my colleagues to support the underlying
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Plaskett

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-20.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 24, strike lines 12 through 22 and insert the
following:
(k) Prohibition on Funding.--No funds are authorized to
carry out the requirements of this Act, and no funds
authorized or appropriated by any other Federal law may be
made available to carry out the requirements of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentlewoman
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H1380]]

My amendment is simple. It rescinds the authority to spend up to $30
million on a commission to do what Congress and the agencies already
do.
If you want duplication, look no further than this bill. It seeks to
reduce the size of bureaucracy by establishing a new commission to
serve a function already performed without the contribution of an
additional $30 million in taxpayer funding.
Now, $30 million may not be too much to the true benefactors of this
bill on K Street, but to seniors, veterans, students, and workers all
across this country, it can go a long way. For example, Social
Security's meager 0.3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for 2017
amounts to $4 more in benefits per month for the average beneficiary.
That means that $30 million would be enough to double that cost-of-
living adjustment for 7.5 million seniors.
We all know that the cost of additional sequestration cuts on
education, health, and the environmental protection loom at the end of
this fiscal year.
The double talk and schizophrenia of my esteemed colleagues on the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee who pushed this bill through
the committee has me truly concerned for the mental state of this
Congress. They want to defund Planned Parenthood, but want to fund a
nine-member task force at a cost of $30 million.
They drag their feet and hem and haw to assist Flint, Michigan, in
funding to promote clean water and save the lives of a community, but
we can sure fund a task force to duplicate already-carried-out
activities by the Federal Government so we can say we did it to the
tune of $30 million.
The chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee wouldn't
allow the people of the Virgin Islands, for 100 years as part of the
United States, to receive $100,000 already earmarked for our interior.
But, we have money for this bill. And let's not discuss all the block-
granting discussions going on around here in this Congress.
Today, the House majority is now asking to authorize $30 million on a
bill that would handcuff enforcement agencies in their ability to
respond to even more pressing new public health and safety problems.
Let me be clear. Reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on small
businesses is a goal that we all share. I recognize that some
regulation is burdensome, and there should be a review of the code to
determine what can be consolidated or repealed to reduce compliance
costs.
One of the things that we seem to agree on is that retrospective
review is helpful in the regulatory process. But, retrospective review
is already going on with money that has already been authorized. All of
the agencies have been required to do this under standing executive
orders issued by President Obama.
As has been discussed before, the results have been successful in
reducing regulations. Agencies have yielded billions of dollars in cost
savings and reduced reporting requirements through the modification of
existing regulations.
People in my district get it that there is a cost to protecting the
environment, but they know that keeping our workers safe and our waters
clean is worth it. There can be and is red tape that is unnecessary,
and there is ongoing work and focus to eliminate and reduce that.
Could there be ways to improve upon existing review regulations?
There very well may be, and I am willing to work with anyone on a good
idea.
Even if $30 million were to come from elsewhere in the budget instead
of additional spending, it would be that much less that agencies would
have to conduct the already ongoing retrospective review process now
going on.
Furthermore, we in Congress also have existing responsibility to
actively conduct oversight of government operations and make
legislative changes as we see fit.
There is simply no reason to spend $30 million on this messaging
effort to ignore the successful work that is already going on by
qualified people, and to hobble the ability of regulators to safeguard
public health and safety in the process.
This Congress has money to throw at solutions in search of a problem,
but requires cost offsets to provide aid for victims of Flint or toward
Zika funding.
Please approve my amendment to save this money.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Ms. Plaskett's
amendment and just want to drill down on one point, which is, in the
name of job creation, we have this bill before us, and we are going to
spend $30 million which will, I suppose, create some jobs here in
Washington with some folks who sit on the commission and the staff who
are going to have to populate it.
But just a couple of days ago, President Trump had the manufacturing
CEOs of this country at the White House, and what they said was jobs
exist, but skills don't; that there is a skills gap in this country,
and that we need to have job training out there to connect people to
these jobs.
Well, we have the Workforce Investment Act that was signed into law
by President Obama in 2014, which created a framework for
apprenticeship programs, advance manufacturing programs, all the things
that these CEOs were talking about, and we are underfunding those
programs--just to take one, the Adult Formula Grants--by just about $30
million.
You want to create jobs? Don't spend $30 million on this ridiculous
commission when, again, we have so many other resources here in
Washington to review regulations. Let's put that money directly into
the programs that will create the skill sets so that people can
actually get a job to support themselves and their families. And don't
take it from us, take it from the CEOs who were with President Trump
just a few days ago about the fact that at a time when we have jobs in
existence, the fact that we are underfunding job training programs is
just totally criminal.

Let's use this $30 million in a more productive way that will
actually connect people to the jobs that are out there in the economy.
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Long). The gentleman from Florida is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, the commission is permitted, under this bill,
to spend $30 million over 5 years for administrative purposes. By
removing the funding in this amendment, the commission will not be able
to hire staff, rent office space, establish the public website as
required in the bill, or hold the public meetings, which are also
required in the bill. This amendment essentially guts the bill.
The commission established under this bill has a momentous job ahead
of it. The Code of Federal Regulations totals more than 178,000 pages.
This is approximately 36,000 pages of regulations for review every year
of the 5 years the commission has to conduct its work.
But it is not just simply reading the pages. There is work behind
understanding whether the regulations are effective. There is outreach
and public hearings to understand how the regulations are or aren't
effective.
I believe the savings from eliminating unnecessary costs and the
improved efficiency from weeding out unneeded regulations will far
outweigh the resources applied to this effort.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that regulations
impose a cost on the economy of $1.8 trillion. Who bears that cost but
the consumers? This amendment would gut the bill. $30 million over 5
years is more than reasonable, considering the economic impact that
these regulations have had on the American business and the American
economy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H1381]]

the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McNerney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, line 17, insert after ``Code'' the following: ``,
except that the term does not include any rule relating to
the physical and cyber security of the bulk-power system (as
defined in section 215(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
824o(a)), including any emergency action to protect and
restore reliability of the bulk-power system''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It
exempts from the bill any agency rule relating to the physical and
cybersecurity of the bulk power system, including any emergency action
to protect and restore reliability. The bulk power system is comprised
of facilities and control systems necessary for operating an
interconnected electrical transmission network to maintain reliability.
Our Nation's electrical system touches each and every part of our
lives, hospitals, schools, transportation, homes, businesses, and our
national security. Our electrical system is the central element of our
Nation's critical infrastructure because all other components of our
infrastructure depend on it.
The electrical system is composed of 640,000 miles of high-voltage
transmission lines and more than 6 million miles of distribution lines.
This network is undergoing a transformation. There are an ever-
increasing number of devices that are connected to the grid;
technological advancements are allowing for efficiencies and cheaper
production of power, whether it is renewable energy or natural gas; and
consumers have more choices and more control. With increased
digitization, automation and interaction also have enhanced grid
flexibility and security.
While these developments present tremendous opportunities, such as
new jobs and reducing carbon emissions, they also pose additional
physical and cyber threats to the transmission and distribution
systems. Stakeholders across the system are facing numerous new threats
and challenges in detecting problems, responding to intrusions, and
keeping rates affordable while maintaining reliability. The long-term
health of the electricity sector is now, more than ever, a shared
responsibility between communities, consumers, industry, and
government.
Despite these challenges, the bulk power system is an example of
industry stakeholders and the Federal Government working well together,
when needed, and working independently, when needed and succeeding.
Transmission and distribution providers have taken it upon themselves
to establish industry-led standards, best practices, and supply chain
management when it comes to grid security. They have worked well with
NERC and FERC in developing Critical Infrastructure Protection
standards for the bulk power system.
These Critical Infrastructure Protection standards cover critical
cyber asset identification, security management, personnel and
training, electronic security, physical security, systems security,
incident reporting and response planning, and recovery plans. There are
72 inactive CIP standards, and 11 that are now subject to enforcement.
These standards aren't always perfect, but they do represent compromise
and collaboration.
A well-protected and reliable grid makes economic sense. Power
outages and disturbances can cost more than $180 billion annually, and
data suggests that electrical system outages attributable to weather-
related events are increasing, costing the U.S. economy an estimated
$20 billion to $55 billion annually. Electric companies are projected
to spend more than $7 billion of their own money on cybersecurity alone
by the year 2020, and are expected to invest nearly $53 billion to
enhance the grid.

{time} 1530

These are significant investments, but essential investments as well.
A more resilient, secure electric sector is something we all benefit
from. It will continue to require investments at all levels, including
from the Federal Government.
We should enhance funding for our national laboratories that have
partnered together via the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium. We should
provide high levels of funding for the Office of Electricity and its
mission to ensure the energy delivery system is more secure, resilient,
and reliable. We must promote R&D that helps bring new, innovative
technologies to the grid.
We will always struggle to keep ahead of those bad actors who are
seeking to attack us, but we can establish metrics, procedures, and
technological capabilities that allow us to respond and adapt.
I agree with many of my colleagues that we should work to identify
and remove regulations that are no longer relevant. The Critical
Infrastructure Protection standards have worked. My amendment ensures
that Federal agencies will have the flexibility needed to respond to
challenges without sacrificing any other necessary protections.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, this bill requires the commission to identify
regulations that should be repealed. These are all regulations under
the bill. While I appreciate my colleague from California's efforts in
his amendment, I just cannot support it.
The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out of date,
no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete. No regulations
should be exempt from this bill.
Ensuring the physical and cybersecurity of the bulk power system is
absolutely important and critical. We should know whether or not the
existing regulations are effective and are useful.
This amendment would prevent the commission from reviewing these
important regulations and ensuring that they are current and effective.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to the safety of the national airspace
system.

[[Page H1382]]

The current inaction on the ``flights over people'' rule could limit
UAS operations, such as news reporting, disaster relief, and public
safety from becoming a reality. As a result, many businesses and the
country could lose out on the full societal and economic benefits of
UAS.
Once UAS are fully integrated into the national airspace, the full
benefits of these tools will help businesses to expand and our economy
to grow--with a projected 100,000 jobs and over $82 billion in economic
impact over the next decade. That is why this particular amendment is
supported by the UAV Coalition as well as the Automated Vehicles
Symposium.
But we need action from regulatory authorities to fully integrate UAS
into our airspace. Without my amendment, the SCRUB Act has the
potential to stifle a growing industry and prevent the modernization of
air traffic. I want to reiterate: UAS operators need guidance and
regulations from the FAA so they can operate safely and without
unnecessary paperwork.
I urge the House to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the bill requires the
commission to identify regulations--all regulations--which should be
repealed. The commission focuses on rules and regulations that are out
of date, no longer useful, and otherwise unnecessary or obsolete.
Again, no regulations should be exempt from this bill.
Ensuring the safety of the National Airspace System is critically
important. We should know whether or not the existing regulations are
effective and useful. This amendment would prevent the commission from
reviewing these very important regulations and ensuring that they are
not only current but also effective.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, investments into this particular
industry are predicated on whether or not regulations are predictable.
As a former small-business man, I can tell you that investments will
not happen if there is an unelected commission that exists that might
change the very rules and regulations upon which current investments
have been made.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the argument about an
unelected commission, I must say that these regulations are already
being promulgated by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
Again, if we are going to have to have a review--an oversight--of our
regulatory scheme, we should not exempt any regulations. I, therefore,
would submit that this amendment would do just that. It would create a
slippery slope of exceptions. Therefore, I, again, would urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, as a small-business man, I can tell
you that small businesses rely on the predictability of regulatory
rules and the regulatory regime. This commission is creating
unpredictability in the system. Therefore, it is going to stifle
investment, it is going to prevent innovation, and it is going to
further throw a monkey wrench into our National Airspace System.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 115-20.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 31, after line 24, add the following new title (and
update the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE VI--EXEMPTIONS

SEC. 601. EXEMPTION RELATING TO AIRPORT NOISE RESTRICTIONS.

The provisions of this Act do not apply to any rule or set
of rules relating to airport noise restrictions.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 150, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, my second amendment to the SCRUB
Act would protect the countless citizens, including many of my own
constituents, who depend on airport noise restrictions to sleep through
the night or learn uninterrupted in school.
Thousands of my constituents near O'Hare International Airport
benefit from these restrictions, as do the millions of people that live
near major airports across the country. As the father of a 10-month-old
baby girl, I can speak from experience to the value of an uninterrupted
night of sleep.
Many FAA noise rules are the product of careful discussions between
airports and local authorities. While noise restrictions have a slight
economic impact on air carriers, the economic benefit to surrounding
communities more than outweighs this.
The unelected commission created by this bill should not have the
ability to overturn restrictions that have been carefully considered by
local governments, the FAA, and airport officials.
Without FAA noise restrictions, people and businesses would suffer,
Mr. Chairman. This would decrease property values in my district, make
it harder for people to start a business, and have a negative effect on
people's health.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that airport noise is very
annoying.
Effective regulations that protect our communities from unwarranted
noise are very important. However, regulations that impose excessive
and costly restrictions that are ineffective at achieving their goals
do not help anyone.
Why not take a look at these regulations and just consider whether
they are working?
If they are, then the regulation stays in place and we continue to
protect our communities from unwarranted noise. If those regulations
are not working, then we repeal them and put in regulations that
achieve the goals and reduce costs.
There is no reason why we should create special carve-outs from the
commission's consideration.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, these particular rules and
regulations were crafted carefully at the local level, and I believe
very strongly that this commission, which is a Federal commission,
should not somehow upset the balance that has been achieved through
local voices having a say in these particular regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that regulations are
regulations. They need to be reviewed at every level. What the SCRUB
Act offers is that opportunity. What this amendment does is limit that
ability.

[[Page H1383]]

For those reasons, I, again, urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, the SCRUB Act should not have the
ability to review regulations and rules that were developed by local
people with local concerns in mind.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-20 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. DeSaulnier of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Plaskett of the Virgin Islands.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. DeSaulnier) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 348,
noes 75, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 105]

AYES--348

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Bacon
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Dunn
Ellison
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Farenthold
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marshall
Mast
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Olson
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--75

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cook
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Gaetz
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Grothman
Harris
Hice, Jody B.
Hollingsworth
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lucas
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
Messer
Mooney (WV)
Noem
Nunes
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Posey
Russell
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Turner
Walker
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Williams
Wittman

NOT VOTING--7

Crawford
Davis, Rodney
Hudson
Moore
Rooney, Thomas J.
Wagner
Zinke

{time} 1611

Messrs. BRAT, WILLIAMS, KELLY of Mississippi, GAETZ, PITTENGER,
WALKER, GROTHMAN, KING of Iowa, BRIDENSTINE, SMITH of Missouri, MASSIE,
CARTER of Georgia, and WITTMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. RICE of South Carolina, ISSA, Ms. JENKINS of
Kansas, Messrs. LoBIONDO, HOLDING, ROUZER, NORCROSS, WOMACK, RASKIN,
COLLINS of Georgia, Mrs. WALORSKI, Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas,
WOODALL, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. COLE, SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York,
GUTHRIE, UPTON, McCAUL, TIPTON, ROSKAM, DeSANTIS, SHIMKUS, Ms.
HANABUSA, Messrs. COHEN, RUTHERFORD, Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California,
and Mr. SMUCKER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Plaskett

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The unfinished business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 243, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page H1384]]

[Roll No. 106]

AYES--181

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--243

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Davis, Rodney
Hudson
Moore
Rooney, Thomas J.
Wagner
Zinke

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1614

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Krishnamoorthi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 107]

AYES--189

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--234

[[Page H1385]]

Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--7

Davis, Rodney
Hudson
Maloney, Sean
Moore
Rooney, Thomas J.
Wagner
Zinke

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1618

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 108]

AYES--192

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--230

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--8

Chu, Judy
Davis, Rodney
Hensarling
Hudson
Moore
Rooney, Thomas J.
Wagner
Zinke

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1622

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Joyce) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 998)
to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules
and sets of rules, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________