Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott.)

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We obviously have a different vantage point on what is taking place in the civil courtrooms of America today. On our side, we look out over America and in the courts and we see millions of our neighbors, our fellow citizens who are suffering the effects of asbestos poisoning, which is real, not imaginary; lead poisoning, which is real, not imaginary; and manufacturing defects by large automobile manufacturers and others. They look at it and all they see is fraud, and they want to put the class action mechanism in a straightjacket to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people to pursue class actions. They want to put the names of asbestos victims up online for the whole world to see. Obviously, we have got a division of opinion within the legislative branch. What about the judiciary itself? Well, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm of the Federal judiciary, and the American Bar Association both strongly oppose H.R. 985. The conference report that has been studying class actions for 5 years has considered many of the issues addressed in H.R. 985. It strongly urges Congress not to amend the class action procedures found in rule 23 outside the Rules Enabling Act process. Likewise, the ABA observes the many problems of advancing comprehensive class action reform without a hearing to examine all the complicated issues involved with so many rule changes. Mr. Chairman, the other side invoked some hearings. I was astonished to hear it because I have been here for several months. I just joined Congress. I didn't have any hearings. It turns out I understand they were referring to hearings that took place last year, perhaps the year before, where I understand--but all of it is hearsay to me because I wasn't here--that actual victims of asbestos poisoning were not permitted themselves to testify. It was a completely one-sided, lopsided process, and I will try to get to the bottom of that in order to determine it. This is what happens when they are moving legislation through this body at lightening speed, but really in the thick of darkness because we don't have any meaningful, transparent communication about what the underlying issues are. Well, I restate my opposition to this. The class action mechanism has been a central vehicle for justice for Americans for many decades. And now without so much as a hearing, without the mobilization of any proof that this should be done over the objections of the Judicial Conference of the United States, over the objections of the American Bar Association, and over the objections of every consumer group and worker group that has written in that I have seen, they are purporting to be acting in the name of the American people. In fact, what they are doing is they are pulling the rug out from underneath the class action vehicle. Class actions have been so central to vindicating the rights of people who have been victimized by corporate polluters and toxic contaminators and automobile manufacturers who knowingly put defective instruments into cars, leading to people's deaths and injuries, and they want to make it more difficult for people to pursue justice in the courts. I urge all of my colleagues to study this legislation the best they can and to reject it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment to H.R. 985 with all due deference to the chair of our committee. Although the amendment makes a number of mostly technical amendments to the bill, it still fails to address the numerous fundamental flaws that we have identified in the underlying legislation, which is a dagger pointing at the heart of class action lawsuits in America. The major substantive change that I noted under the manager's amendment was that class certification would still be prohibited when a named plaintiff or class representative is a relative or employee of the class counsel, but made some other changes narrowing the scope of the conflict of interest provision slightly. The amendment still fails to address the fundamental problem with that provision, which is that there is no justification for concluding that the specified relationships are, per se, problematic or that class certification should be denied just because such a relationship exists. The general problem pervading the legislation remains. The first is a procedural problem, which we have identified. I was delighted that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) responded to our complaint that we had had no hearings on the bill. In response to that, he directed my attention to a hearing that took place in 2011, 6 years ago. There are nine members of the Judiciary Committee who just joined this year and many dozens of Members who have joined the House since 2011. It is true that we could go back and read it within the 24 hours we had to do that before the markup took place. We could also go back and just read at that point the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees to everybody a jury trial which attempts to establish civil justice in America. What we are getting instead is an attempt to put class action lawsuits and civil liability into a straitjacket. It is an attempt to make it far harder for people to see their rights vindicated when they have been violated by an auto manufacturer, someone who is putting asbestos into materials that are being used near servicemembers, those who are selling poisonous breast implants, and so on. I am rising in opposition to the amendment simply because it does nothing to answer the many massive objections leveled against this legislation by consumer groups like the Consumer Federation of America, by groups defending civil justice, like the Alliance for Justice, and indeed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the American Bar Association, both of which strongly oppose this legislation because they do not think it is warranted. They don't think that it responds to any problems that are really out there. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials in the Record on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison. It was 7 years ago in March 2010 that President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law extending access to affordable health insurance coverage to more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans. Insurance companies under the new law could no longer deny you insurance because you had a preexisting condition, and, surely, that makes sense. The fact that you have a preexisting medical condition should be the reason that you get health insurance, not the reason you get denied health insurance. Also, under the new ACA, young people up to age 26 could stay on their family plans, which helps families like mine because I have got a 22-year-old, a 20-year-old, and a 25-year-old. And believe me, they would not have health insurance if not for the Affordable Care Act, and I think my situation is that of millions of people across the country. But today, the ACA is in mortal danger. The House GOP finally unveiled their plan for repealing and replacing the ACA with something else, which I call the unaffordable care act, that will cost millions of people their health insurance, increase everybody's premiums, reduce everybody's coverage, and bring incoherence and chaos into the system. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to Mr. Ellison in just a moment to talk about what is going on with this legislation. But I do want to say something about the process by which we arrived here, because back when the Affordable Care Act was being debated--and I wasn't in Congress then, so I approach this just as a historian--there were multiple complaints from the GOP Members about how fast things were going, how the legislation was being rammed through. For example, our now-Speaker Paul Ryan said about the ACA: ``Congress is moving fast to rush through a healthcare overhaul that lacks a key ingredient,'' he said, ``the full participation of you, the American people.'' Greg Walden, the Energy and Commerce chairman from Oregon, said: On a bill of this significance, you would think we would at least allow people to come in who are affected by the extraordinary changes in this bill, and have a chance to let us know how it affects them. And the Ways and Means Committee chairman today, Kevin Brady, said: The Democratic Congress and White House simply aren't listening. The Democrats are ramming it through over the public's objections. Well, let's go back and look at how long it took the Democrats to get the Affordable Care Act passed and how much public participation and debate there really was. Here in Congress, there were 79 hearings--I repeat, 79 hearings--on the Affordable Care Act. There were 181 witnesses, both expert witnesses and members of the public, citizens coming to testify about the need for expanded health insurance coverage for the American people because of the high expenses of health insurance and the rip-offs of various insurance companies. There were multiple scores that were received from the Congressional Budget Office during that time, as there was constant attention to the budgetary and fiscal implications of the Affordable Care Act. Now, fast-forward to today. We took a year-and-a-half to get to the Affordable Care Act. How about them? Well, let's see. The Republicans introduced their bill on Monday. They passed their bill in the dead of night, at 4:30 in the morning, 3 days later. There have been no hearings on the bill. There have been no witnesses to testify on the bill. There have been no expert witnesses. There have been no witnesses from the public. There is no analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on how much the bill will cost American taxpayers, American citizens, on their plans or how many Americans will lose their health care at all. In other words, the party that complained about how fast the Affordable Care Act came into being, which was over the course of a year and a half with dozens of hearings, and dozens and dozens--more than 100 witnesses and lots of public debate where we went back to our districts and had townhall meetings, where there was orchestrated opposition against the plan, but we still stood there and we engaged in the dialogue, and we stood up for the Affordable Care Act. The people who said that that was too fast are now ramming through, at unprecedented, breakneck, lightning speed, a bill that will wreak devastation on the healthcare rights of the American people. That is what is taking place. If you have got a contaminated, clandestine, secret, closed process, it will produce a terrible, undemocratic, and unhealthy result. That is what we are going to describe to you tonight. I am delighted to yield to my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison.)

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) will stick around. I want to salute him and congratulate him on his new position, not only as a leading Member of the United States House of Representatives, but now as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. All of your colleagues are beaming with pride about your accomplishments and about your national political leadership, and we are delighted that the rest of the country is going to get to share in your leadership now in your new aggressive role out organizing opposition to what is taking place in Washington today. I want to take a little break from railing about this unaffordable care act that is going to drive everybody's rates up and throw millions of people off their health insurance. I want to say a couple of good things that President Trump said as a candidate because he attacked ObamaCare, but he said he wanted a system that covered everybody. He's been quoted many times speaking in favor of a single-payer plan that would cover every citizen. Now, that talk has completely dried up. It has vanished and disappeared. I urge President Trump to go back to his original instinct, which is that, if you are going to repeal and replace ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act, as he keeps saying--let's replace it with the kind of system they have in Canada, they have in Europe, and just cover everybody. That would be the direction to go in. But to go backwards to throw millions of people off their health care is precisely what the American people don't want. Now, here is another proposal that President Trump mentioned in passing when he stood in this Chamber the other night. He said: Let's repeal the special interest lobbyist provision that was snuck into Medicare part D, saying that the government could not negotiate for lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. Again, that was a very popular talking point for Donald Trump when he was running for President. He campaigned like Williams Jennings Bryan, but he is governing like William McKinley; that is, a cabinet filed with CEOs and billionaires. He did mention that. That was one tiny crumb, a remnant of the populist campaign he ran. I urge my Republican colleagues to throw this terrible bill that they are going to waste everybody's time on, that cannot pass, which their Freedom Caucus is totally opposed to; and, instead, focus, at least, on something we can agree on, which is that the 25 or $30 billion that that special interest provision is costing us should be saved. We should allow the government to negotiate for lower drug prices in the Medicare program the way we are allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices in the Medicaid program and in the VA program. So we can work together in a bipartisan basis. However, we are not going to allow anybody to throw millions of Americans off of their health insurance plan while driving up everybody else's rates and bringing the whole healthcare system to the brink of ruin. When I got elected to Congress, I went down to the basement of the Longworth House Office Building after I was sworn in to sign up for my health care because we get health care as part of our jobs as Members of Congress. We pay for it through the local ACA healthcare exchange in the District of Columbia, but we are guaranteed the right to get that because of the Affordable Care Act. When I went down that morning, I was signing up and I was looking through the memo about what we would be doing during my first week in Congress here. Sure enough, I saw that the GOP leadership had put on there a procedural proposal to set the stage for the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act. I looked up to see a line of my new colleagues waiting to come and sign up for their health care. Some of them I recognized as my Democratic colleagues, and some of them I recognized as my new distinguished Republican colleagues. And I said to myself: Wait a second. Please tell me that we are not going to have new Members of Congress come in here and sign up for their own health care that they get as part of their job as Representatives in the United States House of Representatives and then go upstairs to this floor to vote to strip millions of people of their health care. Surely that is not what democratic representation means in the 21st century; that we get to have health care through our jobs, but we are going to take away the health care that other people have. But, my friends, I am sorry to say that is the reality that we are in this week. Congressman Ellison is right, we are not taking the position that the Affordable Care Act is perfect. Far from it. I wasn't in Congress then. I don't know if the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) was. I wasn't in Congress then. But had I been in Congress, I would have been fighting for a single-payer plan. I am on legislation this session to support a single-payer plan. In other words, the Affordable Care Act, for me, doesn't go far enough in guaranteeing that everybody has health care and in dramatically reducing the role of the insurance companies so we can spend more money on health care and less money on red tape and bureaucracy. So the Affordable Care Act, which I support with all of my heart right now against all the attacks to dismantle it, was a compromise. It was a very carefully crafted compromise. Remember, we had more than 100 witnesses come and testify about it. They had zero on their crash-and- burn legislation this week. We had dozens and dozens of hearings where we had witnesses come and testify about it. They have had zero on their crash-and-cash legislation--crash the system and give cash to the insurance companies and the wealthiest people in the country. So we had an open process, and it was a compromise. I remember very clearly as a State senator in Maryland watching President Obama on TV saying, if we are starting from scratch, he would be in favor of a single-payer plan. He said that would be the logical way to go. It is what they have in Europe. It is what they have in Canada and Mexico. He said we are path dependent. We are on a particular path. We understand the role that the big insurance companies play, and they have got a lot of political power, and we have got everybody on the GOP side screaming and shouting for the insurance companies. So he said let's figure out a plan where we keep the insurance companies involved. Guess what? That plan was hatched at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, much beloved and revered by the GOP Members of this body. It was the exact same plan that Governor Mitt Romney, their standard bearer running for President a couple of elections ago, put into place in Massachusetts. The Affordable Care Act was the compromise. Now everybody is on their case because they are hiding under their desks, they are running away from their constituents, and they are canceling their townhalls. Nobody could get a plan out of them. Suddenly they pull a plan out of their sleeve in the middle of the night. They rush it through this body. They voted on it at, I think, 4:30 in the morning after a 27-hour hearing. Everything is meant to be under the cloak of darkness, and people are making fun of them about how silly it is. I sympathize with them because there is nothing they can do because the Affordable Care Act was the compromise. Now, they wanted to name it ObamaCare, of course, because they couldn't stand the idea that President Obama would get the political credit for bringing tens of millions of Americans health insurance. So they had to name it on him and then make up all of these stories about how terrible it was. Guess what? They wake up today. Nobody is calling it ObamaCare anymore. President Obama is doing his own thing. They are calling it the Affordable Care Act, and people are defending it all over the country in 50 States in every congressional district. You have got indivisible groups that have grown up all over the place, and my dear colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are afraid to face their own constituents. They are canceling their townhalls, they are hiding under their beds and behind their office sofas, which, in many cases, are the exact same pieces of furniture because they sleep in their offices here. They don't want to face the people and the fact that we do not want to turn the clock back and go backwards and wreck this system. It is a lot easier to destroy things than to build things. So we urge the GOP: If you want to meet to make real substantial improvements, expansion of the Affordable Care Act to include more people, to reduce the cost of the bureaucracy, let's do it. But your plan is a terrible plan. Your plan is one that is going to throw millions of people off of their health insurance. Your plan is one that is built around a huge tax break and transfer of wealth upwards in the country--one of the biggest transfers of wealth in the country ever to go in the northward direction. It is an amazing thing that that is how they have designed their plan. So it is a huge tax break to the insurance companies and to the wealthiest people, and millions of others are thrown off of their insurance plans. Everybody else's premiums are going to be soaring, and the whole system is likely to come crashing down. If a foreign government like Russia, for example, were trying to do this to us, we would consider it an act of aggression, an act of war against the American people in our health care. But this is, instead, coming from what used to be one of our great political parties, the party of that President who talked about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have, instead, a wrecking ball targeted right at you, the American people, coming after your health insurance, your health care, your ability to participate as a citizen in our healthcare system. That is a remarkable thing to be taking place in 2017. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the thoughtful gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentleman so much and, again, I salute him for his incredible work for the people of Minnesota and the people of America. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much to the distinguished gentleman from New York. We are going to go from the Notorious B.I.G.'s music to the notorious GOP healthcare proposal being considered in Congress this week. General Leave

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Well, I didn't think it was hypothetical. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. RASKIN. Yes, I will.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, is it consistent with the rules of the House of Representatives for the Committee on Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committee to be considering the American Health Care Act without a CBO score that would permit us to know how much this legislation will cost?

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my opposition to this amendment because it is perfectly duplicative, and it does nothing to cure the very serious deficiencies in the underlying bill. Executive Order 13563, which was issued by President Obama, requires each agency to ``periodically review existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' Because there is little doubt that this executive order covers the review and elimination of duplicative and overlapping regulatory actions, there is no need for the additional reporting requirements that this amendment would redundantly impose. More importantly, this amendment simply fails to address the profound flaws in the underlying bill. It fails to provide the bright lines for what an agency can communicate to the public safely within the stringent new guidelines. It fails to eliminate the unnecessarily burdensome and onerous requirements in the bill that seem to have no purpose but to reduce the amount of information agencies would be able to release to the public and invite from the public. The amendment fails to eliminate the prohibition against agencies making public communications that directly advocate for or oppose the submission of public comments or expert analysis of a pending rule. The amendment fails to remove the serious impediments this bill places in the way of agency use of social media platforms. Most importantly, the amendment does nothing to cure the serious chilling effect that the bill would have on agency communications and the negative effects that this imposition would have on the ability of agencies to educate millions of Americans about the costs and benefits of a particular regulation and to invite their input into the rulemaking process. Because the amendment does nothing to improve the flaws of this bill and is duplicative of work that agencies are already required to do, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful presentation and thank the Chair for his indulgence. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think we are finally having some light here on the subject. My distinguished colleague and fellow freshman from Michigan is most concerned about what did take place in the Waters of the United States case. He praises the GAO for responding to Senator Inhofe's inquiry. We all agree that the GAO determined that the EPA ran afoul of existing prohibitions in law on propaganda, on taking a side in an issue. A flag was called on the play and the problem was dealt with. If you find a kid shoplifting a candy bar, and you catch him, you remove him from the store, you tell him not to do it again. You don't then go pass a law saying that anybody under 18 cannot enter any commercial establishment in the country. The law worked in that specific case. But, you see, they have taken a sledgehammer to a mosquito, and the mosquito was already killed. So now what they are busting up is the ability of agencies across the country simply to use the social media to go out and to solicit and invite public input into the rulemaking process. What are we afraid of? Justice Brandeis said that sunshine is the great disinfectant. We want the public involved. We want the public's engagement. So, again, I invite my thoughtful colleagues on the other side to cite one case of an agency doing this that was not dealt with by the GAO. I can cite you countless examples of cases where Federal agencies have gone online to invite public input in a completely objective and neutral way. Now we are creating a chill over that process because of this ban on soliciting advocacy from the public on either side of the issue. So I simply don't get it, and I am puzzled why they continually talk about one case which was happily resolved under existing law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record several letters opposing the bill. Coaltion for Sensible Safeguards, February 28, 2017. Re House floor vote of H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act. Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), an alliance of over 150 labor, scientific, research, good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups, strongly oppose H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act. The bill is a brazen attack on the public's right to know by micro-managing the type of information that agencies are allowed to communicate to all of us when taking actions to protect the public, our economy, and the environment. An open government that prioritizes democratic public participation requires agencies to be able to effectively convey information to the public and make agency policy positions clear to the public. This bill will make our government less open and less democratic and should therefore be rejected. H.R. 1004 will significantly inhibit federal agencies' ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and transparent way regarding its work on important science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public. As a result, the bill will lead to decreased public awareness and participation in the rulemaking process in direct contradiction of the Administrative Procedure Act and agencies' authorizing statutes, which specifically provide for broad stakeholder engagement. Substantial ambiguities in the bill threaten to create uncertainty and confusion among agencies about what public communications are permissible, and thus risks discouraging them from keeping the public apprised of the important work that they do on its behalf. In an era when agencies should be increasingly embracing innovative 21st century communications technologies needed to reach the public, including social media, H.R. 1004 sends exactly the wrong message. The legislation strictly prohibits agencies from issuing ``public communications'' that ``emphasize the importance'' of a particular agency action unless the communication has the ``clear purpose of informing the public of the substance or status'' of the particular action. The legislation applies to a wide swath of regulatory actions including rulemakings, guidance, policy statements, directives and adjudications. While H.R. 1004 assumes that the distinction between informing the public of an agency action and emphasizing the importance of that action is self-evident, in practice the distinction is anything but clear. As a result, agencies are likely to avoid any public communications that risk running afoul of this ambiguous prohibition, no matter how informative the communication might be for the public. For example, various executive orders and statutes compel agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis on their pending rulemakings, and thus to determine whether the rule's benefits outweigh its costs. As currently written, the Regulatory Integrity Act could potentially prohibit an agency from communicating the results of such an analysis when it concludes that a particular rule generates net benefits. After all, that conclusion is tantamount to declaring that the rule makes society better off on balance. Instead, the agency would likely be forced to simply share the basic information that they had conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the regulation without being able to share the further crucial information that the regulation's benefits exceeded the costs. Given that many of the bill's sponsors enthusiastically endorse the expanded use of cost-benefit analysis in the rulemaking process, these kinds of arbitrary prohibitions on communications concerning cost-benefit analysis seem especially peculiar. Agencies would encounter this problematic scenario when deciding to share vital information, such as: How many lives would be saved by a regulation; How much property damage would be averted; How much money consumers would save; and Any of the other myriad public benefits that regulations are designed to provide. The stark absence of any clear bright-lines in the legislation delineating what is and what is not prohibited public communications is sure to have a chilling effect on agencies, with the predictable result that agencies will be less willing to share crucial information with the public and that the public will be less informed about government activities. H.R. 1004 also will severely impede, rather than enable, agency use of new communication technologies, most notably social media platforms, to reach the public. Regulatory experts and scholars agree that agencies should be using social media forums and platforms. Agencies will find it difficult, if not impossible, to communicate with the public through social media under H.R. 1004 since the bill prevents any usage of social media that both conveys information about a regulatory action but also promotes the importance of that action. For example, the U.S. Department of Interior operates a Twitter and Instagram account that is very popular with the public because it regularly features photos of beautiful landscapes and wildlife from national parks across the United States. Under the Regulatory Integrity Act, the Department might be prohibited from posting such photos on Twitter and Instagram because they are not solely informational in nature and could be interpreted as promoting the importance of the department's work in environmental and wildlife preservation. Enactment of H.R. 1004 will lead to less transparency in the government, make it more difficult for agencies to use new communication technologies popular with the public, and generally chill agency communications with the public on important matters due to the lack of any bright-line standards for agencies to follow. We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act. Sincerely, Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen Chair.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be with my distinguished colleague from Michigan on this legislation, which is part of a package of bills brought forward by the majority, which we believe undermine the ability of Federal agencies to effectively promote the public interest. To begin with, it is quite clear that this legislation is unnecessary. Current law already bans the use of agency funds for ``publicity or propaganda purposes.'' Current law also currently bars agency employees from grassroots lobbying campaign designed to pressure Members of Congress to support or to oppose agency proposals. So, at the very least, all of this is duplicative, which wouldn't be so bad just to add another level of red tape and legislation, except for this: If you look at the legislation, under Restriction, part 2, it says: ``Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending agency regulatory action, other than an impartial communication that requests comment on or provides information regarding the pending agency regulatory action, may not-- ``(A) directly advocate, in support of or against the pending agency regulatory action, for the submission of information to form part of the record of review for the pending agency regulatory action. . . .'' So let's parse that for a moment. What they are saying is that the agency may not directly advocate to the public: Please tell us whether you are for or against this regulation and why. They are not trying to prevent a viewpoint-specific propaganda intervention by the agency. This would actually stifle the ability of the agency to solicit anybody's point of view to go out on Facebook and ask, ``What is your position about this,'' and to use social media to solicit the public's input. So although the legislation masquerades as an attempt to promote government transparency, it actually radically undercuts government transparency and the ability of the agencies to solicit the widest possible input. It also says that the agency may not appeal to the public or solicit a third party to undertake advocacy in support of or against the pending agency regulatory action. Now, I would have no problem if what they were trying to do is simply restate the current ban on one-sided propaganda inquiries by an agency to get one side to come out and support or oppose an agency rulemaking, but that is already against the law. What they are trying to do is to cut off the ability of the agency to solicit any public input on all sides of the issue. Why would we place that kind of duct tape over the Administrative Procedure Act? Well, one thought, if you look at this proposal in the context of everything else they have brought forward this week, they want to try to reduce everything to a cost-benefit analysis. That is, what would the cost to polluters be? What would the cost to the violators of the public interest be? They never look at what the benefit to the public is of the regulations, and they want to do it behind closed doors and then prevent the agencies from going out and aggressively soliciting the input of the public on all sides of the issue. So we don't see what the need for this proposal is. We believe that it will have a severely chilling effect on the ability of agencies to do their job. They continually talk about one case, the WOTUS case, the waters of the United States case, where I cheerfully and readily admit that the agency went too far in terms of campaigning for its proposal. But they were called on that. The GAO already determined that they ran afoul of the prohibitions. So they have one case which was dealt with completely legitimately within the law, and they have not cited another case. I would gladly yield my time to my distinguished colleague from Michigan if he can invoke one other case where there was a problem or explain why the resolution of this problem was not sufficient in this case, because I think everybody understood that the agency had gone too far. It was dealt with. The problem is over. So now we have a so-called cure, which is far worse than the underlying disease because the so-called cure is going to stifle and chill the ability of every Federal agency in the United States Government to go out and aggressively solicit public input. That is what we want in the agency process. Now, yesterday, they just voted to create a new roving supercommission that would pore through the rules of all the different Federal agencies and bring back a package and then ask us to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down so they can just more readily dismantle public regulation. Let's be very clear about it. We're talking about regulation that protects clean air. They rejected an amendment that would carve out the Clean Air Act from that bill. We're talking about regulation that protects clean water. We're talking about regulation that protects the purity of our food and our drugs. We're talking about regulations that advance our interests in a clean environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. So it seems like they want to put the whole Federal regulatory process into a straitjacket, prevent the public from being involved, and prevent the agencies from going out and soliciting public input. That doesn't sound like giving government back to the people. That sounds like giving government over to billionaires, special interests, and big corporate powers that have all the lobbyists in Washington and know how to get things done behind closed doors. Mr. Chair, I invite my distinguished colleague from Michigan to address any of the questions I have if there are any examples that he can provide of problems that would yield the need for such a dramatic shutdown on the ability of agencies to solicit public input. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, the advocates for the legislation returned to this one single case, which we all agree about. The GAO ruled that the EPA ran afoul of the prohibition on propaganda and on campaigning. So the law worked there. The GAO blew the whistle on that. They shouldn't be coming out on one side of an issue and running a propaganda campaign. The government should not be engaged in propaganda. We all agree to that. This legislation does something completely different. This legislation, rather than just saying a good day's work to the GAO for blowing the whistle, it says: Now we are going to tell all the Federal agencies and departments that have been out soliciting public input on all sides of issues, saying there is a regulation that has come up about clean air, about clean water, about food, about drugs, about the disposal of nuclear waste, about radioactive materials, and it tells them you can't do that anymore. You can't go out and solicit public input. It places a complete chill on the ability of the government to go out and invite public participation in our government. Why? They keep returning to one case where the GAO blew the whistle where everybody agrees they were out of bounds. A flag was thrown on the play, but now they want to use that in order to essentially impose a gag rule on Federal agencies across the land who are doing our work. The much reviled regulation that the agencies are engaged in is an attempt to flesh out the laws that we pass in this body because we don't want to be setting all of the particular rules about exactly how many pollutants can be in this water, in this stream, in this river, in this creek, and so on, because we are not scientific experts on how many pollutants can be put into the air here and there. So it is delegated to government agencies. But when they go through the Administrative Procedure Act and they have a rule and comment process, they should be able to go out and invite the public to participate. Again, I invite my distinguished and thoughtful colleagues on the other side to cite one other case. Can they cite one case where the GAO did not blow the whistle? Can they cite some other litany of examples where there has been a real problem with government agencies being overzealous where it has not been corrected by the GAO? The silence is deafening. They have used the example of one problem that was caught, that was corrected, in order to try to demolish the ability of Federal agencies to go out and solicit the public's input. To me, that is a familiar experience now, because I have been in the House of Representatives for just 2 months, and, in the committees I serve on, we continue to vote on bills where we have not had a single public hearing. We are not hearing from any of the groups. I have a letter here objecting to this legislation that has been signed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Association for Justice, American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial Reform, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, BlueGreen Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress, Earthjustice, Economic Policy Institute, Environment America, Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers, League of Conservation Voters, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and on and on and on. I would like to have heard from these people in this process, but it seems like all we are getting from the other side is an attempt to have a curtain of darkness fall over all public process. We would like to have hearings. We want groups to be involved. But these people were not invited to testify. They didn't have a chance to opine on this. Mr. Chair, in general, the problem here is that, rather than making government more transparent, we are making government more opaque. Rather than making government more open, we are making government more closed. Rather than reaching out to the public and inviting it into the rulemaking process, we are shutting the door and closing the blinds on it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.