Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, certainly, Dr. Wenstrup, for bringing forward this bill, and also the ranking member here for good bipartisan work. 1978 was a good year. I was playing soccer at the AYSO as a young, 11-year-old kid. It was also a good year because that was the last time the civil service had a total revamp of its system. It has been that long since civil service has had this type of reform, and we are looking, on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to take what is being done here in a good, bipartisan way, and try to institute some of these good best practices into the broader Federal Government. The current hiring process is far too long and far too complex. We want to ensure the Federal Government remains a competitive employment option. We also want to make sure, particularly at the VA, that the department has the necessary data to make smart hiring decisions and ensure important positions are filled. This bill will allow technical experts to earn promotions without having to necessarily go into the management track, which is very important. For some of the skill sets, you don't have to be in management if you are providing a skill that is so imperative to making sure we take care of our veterans. The bill also allows for a fast-tracked reemployment of former VA employees who have a proven record of success at the agency. We get some people trained up, maybe they go and do something else, we ought to give the people priorities in coming back as well, to make sure that we have the most qualified Federal workers who are taking care of the people who have taken care of us. They did the heavy lifting for this country, and they deserve better, and we can do better by them. A big part of that would be passing this bill, H.R. 1367. So, again, I want to thank Mr. Wenstrup for his leadership. I am glad this is moving forward, and I stand in support of the bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I really appreciate what Chairman Roe of Tennessee is doing. He pours his heart and soul into one of the most important issues and things we can deal with here in Congress and, that is, helping our veterans. Veterans step up and serve in our military. I stand in awe. They do the heavy lifting. They run through the fire. They engage. Then they come home, and we have got to do a better job of taking care of those people who take care of us. The Veterans Administration, just like the rest of Federal Government, has a lot of good people who actually work there, do care, and have big hearts. With a government of more than 2 million people, every once in a while you come across some bad apples. They may be a poor performer, or they may just have their heart in a different place, and we have got to deal with these bad apples. While you have a whole set of people who are actually trying to do the right thing, you are going to run into some people every once in a while who aren't doing the right thing, and you have to be able to dismiss them. Now, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction on the Federal civilian workforce, and we have worked closely with Chairman Roe of Tennessee to help make this possible. Through the last couple of years that I have been chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we have heard a number of accounts where Federal employees couldn't be disciplined fast enough. It was obvious what they had done, but they had run into roadblocks in being able to dismiss people. We heard horror stories from the Environmental Protection Agency where there was a sexually harassed intern that lasted for 3 years. It took 5 weeks to process the harasser's removal proceedings. We heard the Government Accountability Office come and testify before our committee that it can take 6 months to a year to remove a Federal employee for poor performance. You know what? That isn't good enough. When you have a bad apple and somebody is misusing the system and they are not performing, they are hurting our veterans. And when they are hurting our veterans, I take that personally. Everybody should take that personally. Nobody wants to see that happen. So this bill, H.R. 1259, is a very important bill to accelerate that process. Again, let's remember that most of the people who work there are good, hardworking, patriotic people who care. But when you do have a bad apple and you do need to get rid of that person, we have to have an expedited removal proceeding. I know this bill does a number of things, but I can tell you, having heard testimony time and time and time again in a variety of Federal agencies, especially the VA, this is a much-needed bill. We are going to work as a committee to implement reforms like this governmentwide. To put the Veterans Administration first and deal with this first, I think, is the right priority of this Congress. Again, hats off to Chairman Roe of Tennessee and the committee as a whole for addressing this so aggressively and so early in the 115th Congress. I urge passage of H.R. 1259.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate working with my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We disagree on many things, but we have good debates, and I do appreciate the spirit in which Mr. Connolly brings this amendment forward. I enjoy working with the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), and certainly our ranking member, Mr. Cummings. I try to accept and work with the minority on all things, but certainly amendments that they would like to see move forward. Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose this one. I am trying to maximize transparency. I think what Mr. Mitchell is bringing forward in this bill is the right policy in opening up this transparency. I see this going in the wrong direction. It would remove existing requirements for agencies, such as the EPA or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to give notice about upcoming regulations. It removes existing requirements, for instance, for the EPA to submit its rules to OIRA for review. In a March 2015 hearing, in fact, it was Mr. Connolly of Virginia who said: ``OIRA boasts an incredibly hardworking, and dedicated corps of career staff that is first-rate when it comes to conducting quantitative analysis that weighs complex economic costs against potential benefits.'' I happen to agree with Mr. Connolly. I think there are good, hardworking, and dedicated people who are committed to this country, and they work hard. That is why I think this hardworking, dedicated corps of people who work as career staff should offer first-rate, as we call it, analysis for all regulations, not just some of them. Let's do it for all of them. I think that is fair. We want to know that the regulations will be effective in achieving their goals. We have to always keep sight, Mr. Chairman, that all of us in the Federal Government work for the American people. They pay the bills and they have to live under these regulations. We should maximize that transparency, whether they are, quote, unquote, independent or part of the executive agency. If you are affected by a rule, you are affected by a rule, and people who are affected by those have every right to see what helped create that. So I don't think there should be an exemption that is carved out under this bill, and that is why I stand in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires OIRA to maintain records on each significant regulatory action reviewed such that it is easily accessible and transferrable when responding to congressional requests. Unfortunately, in the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, the committee asked for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA--asked Administrator Shelanski for records relating to the review of the Waters of the United States, often known as WOTUS, and that rulemaking process. The administrator repeatedly failed to take the requests seriously, which led me, as the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to issue a subpoena in July of 2015. Even upon issuance of a subpoena, OIRA resisted responding to the request, blowing past deadlines and being totally nonresponsive. We held multiple hearings. We conducted transcribed interviews. We had lengthy staff-to-staff conversations, but still OIRA did not seem to take the request seriously. I don't know how much money they wasted in time and effort to slow this process down and resist our being able to get the information that they said they had in order to make this decision. It was not until the committee, myself, as the chairman, getting on the phone with the head of OMB, when I told him that I had every intention to hold Mr. Shelanski in contempt and issue a contempt report, that we actually received a full set of documents. This was well past a year since the initial request. You should not have to go through those gyrations whatsoever. I will think the resistance was largely a political maneuvering--this is my own opinion--by the administration that did not want us to see how rushed, incomplete, and politically involved this regulatory review was. That is my own personal opinion. But for those who are here and the future generations, it seems reasonable that they have to have their act in order if they are actually going to issue a rule. And if Congress asks for the underlying information, as Representatives of the people, that should be easily transferrable to Congress upon request. That is what this amendment does. This is why it should pass, and that is what this amendment is intended to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to simply point out that the bill does extend OIRA to review independent agencies. I also would point out, as I did earlier, the Administrative Conference of the United States recommended OIRA review be extended to independent agencies back in 1988. In fact, the American Bar Association recommended OIRA review be extended to independent agencies in 1990 and reaffirmed the need again in 2016. They said: ``We strongly urge you to bring the independent regulatory commissions within the requirements for cost-benefit analysis''--I am going to just inject my own words here in the middle. Cost-benefit analysis, isn't that something reasonable that we should all look at? That is not asking an agency too much, especially if they already have the information. They went on to say: ``OMB review, and retrospective review of rules currently reflected in Executive Order 12866. . . . `' Those are not overly burdensome requests. In fact, in 2011, Sally Katzen, the OIRA Administrator under President Clinton, urged Congress to support extending OIRA review to independent agencies, when she wrote: ``Our concern is that independent agencies are not typically engaging in the analysis that has come to be expected as a form of governmental best practice for regulatory agencies.'' It seems like a reasonable expectation to employ best practices. And all that bill does is--again, it does not interfere with independent agencies' rulemaking process or their policy decision. It simply requires OIRA to review the regulations to ensure these agencies are complying with legal requirements just the same as any other agency. That is a reasonable request. That is why we urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I would just point out that these independent agencies need oversight as much as any other agency; and, ultimately, what we are trying to do is provide more transparency, more information to the public. Whether or not they think they are independent or not, they still work for the American people, and the people that are footing the bills and that have to live under these regulations should have the right to see this information and have this information provided to them through the process. We are never going to apologize for trying to increase the transparency and the process. That is what this bill does. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me mention that the bill does not require any of these agencies to provide new analysis. And I haven't really heard an example or a reason why something would be prohibited in an agency from sharing existing cost-benefit analysis. What could the agencies have that they should not share with OIRA? It just seems reasonable that if they have this information, they should share it. Ultimately, we do work for the American people, and the American people should be able to see this information as it goes to OIRA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. 1009.

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here to consider H.R. 1009. This is a bill sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell). It is cosponsored on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer). We are also pleased to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) as cosponsors. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act. OIRA stands for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It has many responsibilities. It is a little known agency, but very powerful and very important. Some of its most well-known responsibilities are governed by an executive order. Executive Order 12866 was issued by President Clinton in 1993. The order was maintained under President Bush and reaffirmed by President Obama in 2009. The OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act puts into statute the basic structure that has existed for more than two decades. The legislation also includes some minor adjustments for increased transparency and accountability. For example, agencies are required to provide OIRA with a redline of any changes the agency chooses to make during the review process. This allows the public to better understand how centralized review can improve the quality of rulemaking. The bill clarifies the process for extending the time for OIRA to review regulations. Currently, OIRA has 90 days to review a regulation, but at the request of the issuing agency, OIRA can extend the review indefinitely without notice to the public. Under the Obama administration, many rules were under review for more than a year with no explanation whatsoever. H.R. 1009 requires OIRA and the regulating agency to agree upon the extension and provide a written explanation to the public, including an estimated date of completion. The government works for the people. You would think if they are going to miss deadlines and be late and go beyond the current rules, the people who are involved in the rulemaking would at least offer a little bit of a written explanation. The bill also requires OIRA to update the explanation and estimated completion date every 30 days after that moving forward. Another significant difference from the executive order is H.R. 1009 includes independent agencies in OIRA's review of significant regulations. Independent regulatory agencies already submit their regulations to OIRA for the unified agenda and the annual regulatory plans. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, independent agencies submit information collection requests, which is another way to say government forms, to OIRA for approval. For decades, experts across the political spectrum, including the Administrative Conference of the United States and the American Bar Association, have called for the inclusion of independent agencies in the significant regulation review process. Again, a good group there, the Administrative Conference of the United States, as well as the American Bar Association also asking for these independent agencies. There is significant bipartisan agreement on including the independent agencies. In fact, President Obama's Jobs Council recommended including independent agencies in OIRA's regulatory review. Sally Katzen, OIRA administrator under President Clinton, said: ``For all practical purposes, the way executive branch agencies and independent agencies conduct rulemaking is the same, so they both should be expected to gather and use information on the costs and benefits of new regulatory proposals.'' She went on to suggest: ``Congress could adapt that approach for OIRA review of the analysis underlying independent agency rulemakings.'' And she goes on. That is exactly what the bill does, which brings me to the last major difference between this bill and the executive order. This bill requires OIRA to report on what it reviewed and the results of that review. The Oversight Committee conducted an extensive investigation into the Waters of the United States rulemaking, also known as WOTUS. During the course of the investigation, it was clear OIRA was not conducting the analysis I think we should all expect. OIRA even shortchanged the interagency review process in order to meet the self- imposed arbitrary deadline. H.R. 1009 requires OIRA to issue a report on each significant regulation it reviews so the public can see exactly what legal requirements OIRA focused on and what OIRA found. H.R. 1009 asks OIRA to consider: Did the agency technically comply with the requirement? Did it make solid effort to improve the regulation through the process? Or was the agency just going through the motions? These are very legitimate, easy, simple questions that we think can be answered. Agencies are supposed to consider the public's comments, but what if the final rule is drafted before the comments are even reviewed? Perhaps the law does not explicitly prohibit that, but is it really an effective regulatory practice? The question is more than just whether agencies have simply complied. It is whether the agency is doing everything it can to limit the burden and make its regulations effective and easy to understand. By requiring OIRA to make the results of its review of rulemakings available to the public, this bill will encourage agency accountability and improve the public's understanding of the rulemaking process. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved this bill, without amendment, on February 14 of this year. I again want to thank the leadership of Congressman Mitchell for doing all that he has done to bring us to this point where we are debating this on the floor of the House. I also want to thank Katy Rother for her tireless work on this bill. She has done an awful lot of work, working with both sides of the aisle. Hats off to her as well. Again, I urge the passage of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, February 27, 2017. Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. Sincerely, Keith Hall. Enclosure. H.R. 1009--OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act As ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 14, 2017

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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

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 will be Members from both sides of the aisle who will be able to appoint members. Other regulations would be subject to innovative, regulatory CutGo procedures. The CutGo process gives agencies flexibility on how to prioritize regulatory elimination. It allows agencies to choose which regulations to repeal or amend and at what time. However, new regulations may not be promulgated until equally costly regulations are repealed. The SCRUB Act gives agencies the direction and momentum needed to implement the regulatory reform our economy needs. We all know that regulations can improve health and safety; but sometimes, with the best intention, these outdated and excessive regulations hurt our economy and put other people in jeopardy. The accumulation over decades is something that should just simply be reviewed. I think it is pretty hard to argue that a review process is unwarranted or unneeded, given the amazing and impactful status that it puts upon those things that are damaging our economy. I again want to thank Jason Smith for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Bob Goodlatte and the Judiciary staff for their dedicated work on this, as well as Chairman Pete Sessions for his good work on this. A lot of good people have worked on this. I do support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, February 16, 2017. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On February 14, 2017, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without amendment H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017'' (SCRUB Act) by a vote of 22 to 17. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with an additional referral to the Committee on the Judiciary. I ask that you allow the Committee on the Judiciary to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman.

Mr. 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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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

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

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution. During the past 8 years, the number of newly issued regulations and the costs of those regulations have surged. By the prior administration's own estimates, Federal regulations promulgated over the last 10 years alone have imposed a cost of more than $100 billion annually on American taxpayers. H.J. Res. 37, which we are considering today under the Congressional Review Act procedures, represents an important step toward rolling back this tsunami of rules. Once a CRA resolution of disapproval for a rule is enacted, agencies cannot reissue the rule or any substantially similar rules in the future. H.J. Res. 37 revokes the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, otherwise known as the blacklisting rule. I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx for her leadership on this resolution of disapproval. I also want to recognize my fellow original cosponsors, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Mitchell, for their leadership on this issue as well. I want to highlight the impact of this rule on the Federal acquisition system as well as contractors. This rule requires Federal contractors to report violations and alleged violations of 14 Federal labor laws and undefined equivalent State labor laws for the previous 3 years. Contractors must collect and report this information every time they submit a proposal for a contract and then every 6 months during the contract performance. Then Federal contract officers consult with their agency's newly created agency labor compliance adviser before determining if a contractor is eligible for a contract award. There are a number of reasons this rule should be revoked. The Federal acquisition system is already a very complex, inefficient system. This contractor blacklisting rule is exactly the type of requirement an already complex Federal acquisition system does not need. The rule adds another contractor clause to an increasingly long list of clauses in every Federal contract. It slows down a process that already has trouble delivering goods and services in a timely manner. It increases the burden on Federal contract officers who have to review and assess the significant volume of information and take on the role of labor law experts. The rule imposes significant costs on contractors, which means the government, which ultimately means the taxpayers. The rule itself is estimated to cost contractors and subcontractors more than $458 million in the first year and $413 million in the second year of its implementation. Some experts believe the government underestimated these costs. The cost to establish a new information collection, reporting, and assessment system to comply with the rule would be prohibitively expensive for most contractors, especially the small contractors. Mr. Speaker, this is where the rubber meets the road. It is these small contractors. In fiscal year 2016, the Federal Government spent more than $470 billion contracting for goods and services. We need to be looking for ways to reduce, not increase, spending in this area. The rule discourages competition and reduces access to innovation. The last thing we need to do for the Federal acquisition system is to discourage competition and innovation, particularly for first time participants who want to join the Federal marketplace. There are already so many barriers to entry, particularly for these small businesses. So think about the small business at home. They want to compete for these Federal contractors. They may be a very small organization. Even after we pass the resolution of disapproval, there are still rules, there are still laws, and there are still a lot of burdens that they have to deal with. But I want to cite some Bloomberg data about the number of first time Federal vendors. We have fallen to a 10-year low--down 24 percent in 2007 to only 13 percent in 2016. What that means is the big are probably getting bigger, but the small guy, the mom, the pop, and the woman who is starting a new business and wants to compete for these Federal contracts don't have a fighting chance. For the Federal Government to put more burdens on there, especially things that haven't been substantiated, is just not fair, and it is just not right. The rule duplicates existing labor enforcement mechanisms to hold contractors accountable and, therefore, I believe, is not necessary. Revoking this rule will not leave Federal contractors free to violate labor laws. To the contrary, the Department of Labor has significant oversight and investigation resources to enforce the Federal labor law. Further, if there is a bad-apple contractor not complying with the law, contract officers already have the authority to refer contractors for suspension and disbarment. This rule raises due process and First Amendment concerns. One of the most disturbing parts of the rule is that contractors would be required to report alleged violations--not confirmed--just the alleged violations of the 14 Federal labor laws, and the undefined equivalent of State labor laws. It deprives contractors of their legal rights to challenge such allegations. The reporting requirement covers non-final administrative merits determinations without regard to the severity of the alleged violation. Contractors would have to disclose National Labor Relations Board complaints, OSHA citations, EEOC non-final letters of determination, even though these cases have not been adjudicated and the record is incomplete. Contractors challenged this rule in Federal Court, and the judge, in granting a preliminary injunction for the rule, found this reporting requirement could also impact contractors' First Amendment rights. The judge said that the rule could result in compelled speech by requiring contractors to report allegations that would cause a reputational harm, particularly if after adjudication the allegation is found to be without merit. This rule increases costs, complexity, and reduces competition in the Federal acquisition system. We are having trouble getting new entrants in to compete as contractors, and, therefore, I urge the support of the passage of H.J. Res. 37. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from Georgia is opposed to this bill, but I do think it is reasonable to give a time frame as to when they are supposed to issue this so it doesn't continue on in perpetuity. I think it is reasonable. To the gentleman's point about the staffing, we don't get into that granular detail here. That is left to the Office of Management and Budget. Those decisions have been made by the Obama administration for the last 8 years. The new Office of Management and Budget will need to take into account the staffing levels and how OMB will determine whether they need more staff or less staff, but I would certainly support the idea that, if they are overwhelmed with issues, let's make sure that they are properly staffed. This is an important agency. It is the bottleneck. We have to make sure that they are functioning properly. We are supportive of that, but I do think it is reasonable to offer that timeline. I appreciate the support of the chairman on this, and I urge passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, certainly the gentleman from Georgia is not opposed to the number 270. It is a beautiful number. Normally we give them about 6 months to promulgate a rule. This is 50 percent more than that. It is roughly 9 months. If a woman can give birth in that amount of time, my guess is they can go ahead and put together some rules in that amount of time. We gave it quite a bit of thought. I think it is properly balanced. We don't want it to be a year. It is 50 percent more than we normally ask and that OIRA is used to doing in rulemaking. So certainly they can accomplish that. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the committee.