59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–729 

REGULATORY INTEGRITY ACT OF 2016 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5226] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 5226) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, 

United States Code, to require the publication of information relating to pending agency regulatory actions, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 5 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 5 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 7 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 7 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 7 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 7 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 7 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 7 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 7 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 7 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 8 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 8 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 12 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

1 5 USC § 551 et seq. (1946). 

2 79 Cong. Rec. 2148–2167 (1946) (statement of Sen. McCarran). 

3See S. Doc. 248, Administrative Procedure Act Legislative History, Sen. Doc. 248, 79th Cong. 

2d Sess. (1946). 4 Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), https://archive.org/ 

details/AttorneyGeneralsManualOnTheAdministrativeProcedureActOf1947. 5The Administrative State: An Examination of Federal Rulemaking: Hearing Before the S. 

Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 2 (2016) (written statement 

of Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University 

Law School) (hereinafter Administrative State). Currently there are approximately 2,840,000 

federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies, and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies. Id. 6See, e.g., Stuart M. Benjamin, EVALUATING E-RULEMAKING: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, 55 Duke L. J. 895 (2006); Cornelius M. Kerwin, RULEMAKING: HOW GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WRITE LAW AND MAKE POLICY 113, 189 (3d 

ed. 2003). 7 Administrative State. 

8 Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2280 n.142 (2001). 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act, seeks to provide transparency into the proposed rule process by requiring federal agencies to post, in a central location, all public comments the agency 

makes about a proposed rule during a proposed rule stage. The bill 

also prohibits agencies from actively soliciting support for a proposed rule during the phase that is meant to gather public input 

on possible regulatory action. Under H.R. 5226, federal agencies 

are required to tell the public whether they are considering alternatives or soliciting feedback during the proposed rule stage and 

agencies are prohibited from making statements that serve as selfaggrandizement, such as communications tending to emphasize the 

importance of the agency, its officials, or the activity in question. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was enacted in 1946 to 

ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide expertise, 

opinions, and other comments.1 As then-Chairman of the Senate 

Judiciary Committee Patrick McCarran explained, the APA ‘‘is a 

bill of rights for . . . Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government. It is designed to provide guaranties of due process in administrative procedure.’’ 2 Former Attorney General Tom C. Clark further expounded upon the spirit of the unanimously-passed 3 APA in 

stating that the basic purposes of the bill is to ‘‘require agencies 

to keep the public currently informed of their organization, procedures and rules,’’ and to ‘‘provide for public participation in the 

rule making process.’’ 4

Unfortunately, given the broad language of the APA and the 

massive growth of federal agency rulemaking,5 the rulemaking 

process is often perceived as one that is dominated by interest 

groups and is largely opaque to the public at large.6 Such a shift 

away from the public-first spirit of the APA has meant that most 

of the agency deliberations are carried out without a record or public review.7 As Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted during 

her academic career, ‘‘[t]he APA contains no prohibitions on ex 

parte contacts between agency personnel and outside persons in notice-and-comment rulemaking.’’ 8 H.R. 5226 addresses this concern 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

9Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015); see also Texas v. United States, 

787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015). 10See Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, Attorney General, to Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. 

Citizenship & Imm. Serv., Thomas A. Winkowski, Acting Director, U.S. Imm. & Customs Enforcement, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, on Exercising 

Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children 

and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent 

Residents (Nov. 20, 2014), www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ 

14l1120lmemoldeferredlaction.pdf. 11Texas, 86 F. Supp. 3d at 591. 12 Administrative State. 13GAO defines self-aggrandizement as publicity of a nature tending to emphasize the importance of the agency or activity in question, noting that one of the prohibition’s primary targets 

is communication with an obvious purpose of puffery. Letter from Susan A. Poling, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, to the Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chairman, S. Comm. on Env. 

& Public Works (Dec. 14, 2015) (on file with author) (hereinafter GAO Letter). 14GAO Letter. 15 Id. 16 Id. 

by requiring agencies to increase transparency measures regarding 

communications to the public. 

The demand for legislation of this type to ensure transparency 

and public participation in the informal rulemaking process has, 

thus, been widespread and consistent over a period of many years. 

United States v. Texas is an alarming example of how agencies operate independently from the public in promulgating regulations 

that affect our society and economy in fundamental ways.9 Despite 

the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements being repeatedly enforced by the courts as a precondition for rules to have the force 

of law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) simply 

chose to issue a November 20, 2014 directive setting forth the provisions of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful 

Permanent Residents (DAPA).10 In Texas there was no advance notice or comment—a violation found by the district court.11 When 

challenged over the circumvention of the APA-required notice-andcomment requirements, the Administration ‘‘simply declared that 

the enormous program affecting the status of millions of undocumented persons fell within an exception for ‘general statements of 

policy.’ ’’ 12

In addition to the issues surrounding transparency and public 

participation in agency rulemaking demonstrated by Texas, agencies have further undermined the purpose and spirit of the notice 

and comment process by actively campaigning for support of their 

proposals.13 As an example, after issuing the Waters of the United 

States (WOTUS) notice of proposed rulemaking, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a public campaign utilizing certain social media platforms to solicit support for what, at the time, 

was a proposed rule.14 During the public comment period, the EPA 

used social media platforms to communicate about the proposed 

rule and solicit support for their specific proposal.15

In response to concerns raised about possible misuse of federal 

funds, GAO issued a report that found that the EPA not only violated publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use of its FY2014 and FY2015 appropriations, but additionally raised ‘‘a question about self-aggrandizement because certain posts described what EPA declared as benefits . . . and attributed such benefits to the agency’s new rule.’’ 16

Specifically, GAO identified four troublesome social media campaigns run by the EPA with regard to WOTUS rulemaking: ThunVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:34 Sep 11, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR729.XXX HR729

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

17Thunderclap is a ‘‘crowdspeaking platform’’ that allows a single message to be shared across 

multiple Facebook, Twitter, and Tumbler accounts at the same time. GAO Letter. 18GAO Letter at 18. 19See, e.g., GAO Letter at 20; Waters of the United States: Stakeholder Perspectives on the 

Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Rule: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Agric., Nutrition & Forestry, 

114th Cong. (2016) (statement of the Hon. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney Gen., Arkansas). 20GAO Letter at 12. 21GAO Letter at 24. 22 H.R. 5226, 114th Cong. § 307(a) (2016). 23 H.R. 5226, 114th Cong. § 307(a)(2)(A)–(B) (2016) (defining aggrandizement as ‘‘any communication emphasizing the importance of the Executive agency or agency regulatory action that 

does not have the clear purpose of informing the public of the substance or status of the Executive agency or agency regulatory action; or any communication that is puffery’’). 

derclap 17, the #DitchtheMyth Campaign, the #CleanWaterRules 

Campaign, and EPA’s Links to External Websites. Through each of 

these campaigns, the EPA ‘‘appealed to the public to contact Congress in opposition to pending legislation in violation of the grassroots lobbying prohibition.’’ 18 Of perhaps greater concern, through 

these campaigns the EPA condensed an immensely complicated 

rule in order to solicit support for their rule, leaving the public misinformed.19

Through its study, GAO found multiple instances where the EPA 

violated both the spirit of the APA, as well as grassroots lobbying 

prohibitions, by engaging in self-aggrandizement without properly 

identifying themselves as the author. In finding that the Thunderclap campaign ‘‘constituted covert propaganda,’’ GAO specifically 

noted that the ‘‘EPA created a Thunderclap message that did not 

identify EPA as the author,’’ leaving the estimated 1.8 million individuals the message reached entirely unaware ‘‘that the message 

was prepared and disseminated by EPA.’’ 20 Further, in linking ‘‘external websites belonging to environmental action groups to support statements made in [EPA’s] blog, the EPA made ‘‘clear appeals 

to the public to contact Congress at a time when legislation to prevent implementation of the WOTUS rule was pending.’’ In doing so, 

GAO found that ‘‘this association combined with the clear appeals 

actually contained in the . . . form prohibited conduct.’’ 21

The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016 would help to remedy the 

perception that agency rulemaking is impervious by permanently 

prohibiting federal agencies from anonymously issuing statements 

for propaganda purposes. Specifically, H.R. 5226 requires agencies 

to make available online information about public communications 

about pending regulatory actions.22 Further, H.R. 5226 would ensure true transparency in the rulemaking process and remedy the 

problems identified by GAO by requiring that agencies ‘‘expressly 

disclose that the Executive agency is the source of the information 

to the intended recipients,’’ and mandates that agencies ‘‘may not 

. . . solicit support for or promote . . . pending agency regulatory 

action; or include statements of aggrandizement.’’ Additionally, 

H.R. 5226 would further buoy public trust and involvement in the 

rulemaking process by creating a heightened-standard of self-aggrandizement.23

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016, was introduced 

on May 13, 2016 by Representative Tim Walberg (R–MI) and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On 

May 17, 2016, the Committee ordered H.R. 5226 favorably reported, without amendment, by a record vote of 22 to 14. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

Designates the short title of the bill as ‘‘The Regulatory Integrity 

Act of 2016.’’ 

Section 2. Publication of information relating to pending regulatory 

actions 

Adds section 307 to chapter 3 of title 5 of the United States 

Code. 

Subsection (a) of section 307 sets definitions for agency regulatory action, aggrandizement, public communication, and rule 

making. 

Subsection (b) of section 307 requires agencies to make available 

online information about public communications about pending regulatory actions. 

Subsection (c) of section 307 sets requirements for public communications about pending regulatory actions by requiring agencies to 

specify if they are considering alternatives or accepting comments, 

and that the agency is the source of the communication, and prohibiting agencies from soliciting support for the pending regulatory 

action and making statements of aggrandizement. 

Subsection (d) of section 307 requires agencies to annually report 

about public communication activity about pending regulatory actions. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments to H.R. 5226 were offered during Full Committee consideration of the bill. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 17, 2016, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 5226, by a vote of 22 to 14, 

a quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

There was one recorded vote during consideration of H.R. 5226: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 HR729.001
7 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill requires the publication 

of information relating to pending agency regulatory actions. This 

bill does not relate to employment or access to public services and 

accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives of the bill are to require the publication of information 

relating to pending agency regulatory actions. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether the 

provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
8 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill. 

However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 8, 2016. 

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. 5226, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016. 

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. 5226—Regulatory Integrity Act of 2016 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5226 would have no significant cost over the next five years. The bill could affect direct 

spending by agencies not funded though annual appropriations; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by those agencies would be 

negligible. Enacting H.R. 5226 would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5226 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 5226 would direct each federal agency to make information 

regarding their regulatory actions publicly available in a searchable format on a prominent website. That information would have 

to include the date a regulation was considered, its current status, 

an estimate of when the regulation would be final, and a brief description of the regulation. In addition, agencies would be required 

to track the details of all public communications about pending regulatory actions. Because this information is already collected by 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
9 

regulatory agencies, CBO estimates that the cost of making it 

available online would not be significant. 

H.R. 5226 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 3—POWERS 

Sec. 

301. Departmental regulations. 

* * * * * * * 

307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory action. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 307. Information regarding pending agency regulatory action 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) AGENCY REGULATORY ACTION.—The term ‘‘agency regulatory 

action’’ means guidance, policy statement, directive, rule making, or adjudication issued by an Executive agency. 

(2) AGGRANDIZEMENT.—The term ‘‘aggrandizement’’ means— 

(A) any communication emphasizing the importance of the 

Executive agency or agency regulatory action that does not 

have the clear purpose of informing the public of the substance or status of the Executive agency or agency regulatory action; or 

(B) any communication that is puffery. 

(3) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.—The term ‘‘public communication’’— 

(A) means any method (including written, oral, or electronic) of disseminating information to the public, including an agency statement (written or verbal), blog, video, 

audio recording, or other social media message; and 

(B) does not include a notice published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 553 or any requirement to publish 

pursuant to this section. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
10 

(4) RULE MAKING.—The term ‘‘rule making’’ has the meaning 

given that term under section 551. 

(b) INFORMATION TO BE POSTED ONLINE.— (1) REQUIREMENT.—The head of each Executive agency shall 

make publicly available in a searchable format in a prominent 

location either on the website of the Executive agency or in the 

rule making docket on Regulations.gov the following information: 

(A) PENDING AGENCY REGULATORY ACTION.—A list of each 

pending agency regulatory action and with regard to each 

such action— 

(i) the date on which the Executive agency first began 

to develop or consider the agency regulatory action; 

(ii) the status of the agency regulatory action; 

(iii) an estimate of the date of upon which the agency 

regulatory action will be final and in effect; and 

(iv) a brief description of the agency regulatory action. 

(B) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.—For each pending agency 

regulatory action, a list of each public communication 

about the pending agency regulatory action issued by the 

Executive agency and with regard to each such communication— 

(i) the date of the communication; 

(ii) the intended audience of the communication; 

(iii) the method of communication; and 

(iv) a copy of the original communication. 

(2) PERIOD.—The head of each Executive agency shall publish 

the information required under paragraph (1)(A) not later than 

24 hours after a public communication relating to a pending 

agency regulatory action is issued and shall maintain the public availability of such information not less than 5 years after 

the date on which the pending agency regulatory action is finalized. 

(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.—Any public communication issued by an Executive agency that refers to a pending 

agency regulatory action— 

(1) shall specify whether the Executive agency is considering alternatives, including alternatives that may conflict with the intent, objective, or methodology of such agency regulatory action; 

(2) shall specify whether the Executive agency is accepting or 

will be accepting comments; 

(3) shall expressly disclose that the Executive agency is the 

source of the information to the intended recipients; and 

(4) may not— 

(A) solicit support for or promote the pending agency regulatory action; or 

(B) include statements of aggrandizement for the Executive 

agency, any Federal employee, or the pending agency regulatory action. 

(d) REPORTING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than January 15 of each year, the 

head of an Executive agency that communicated about a pending agency regulatory action during the previous fiscal year 

shall submit to each committee of Congress with jurisdiction 

over the activities of the Executive agency a report indicating— 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
11 

(A) the number pending agency regulatory actions the Executive agency issued public communications about during 

that fiscal year; 

(B) the average number of public communications issued by 

the Executive agency for each pending agency regulatory action during that fiscal year; 

(C) the 5 pending agency regulatory actions with the highest number of public communications issued by the Executive agency in that fiscal year; and 

(D) a copy of each public communication for the pending 

agency regulatory actions identified in subparagraph (C). 

(2) AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.—The head of an Executive agency that is required to submit a report under paragraph (1) shall 

make the report publicly available in a searchable format in a 

prominent location on the website of the Executive agency. 

* * * * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
(12) 

1William P. Barr, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, 

Constraints Imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 1913 on Lobbying Efforts (1989). 2Government Accountability Office, Department of Health and Human Services—Use of Appropriated Funds for Technical Assistance and Television Advertisements (Oct. 19, 2010) (B320482) (online at www.gao.gov/assets/400/390290.pdf). 3Letter from Roger J. Cramer, Managing Associate General Counsel, Government Accountability Office, to Chairman James Inhofe, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

(July 16, 2015) (online at www.gao.gov/assets/680/671628.pdf). 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 5226. This bill would 

prohibit agencies from publicly disclosing information to ‘‘promote’’ 

a pending agency regulatory action. Virtually any action an agency 

might take to communicate the benefits of a rule could be viewed 

as promoting the rule. The bill also would restrict statements of 

‘‘aggrandizement,’’ which is defined more broadly in the bill than 

by GAO in certain appropriations decisions. 

The bill would require agencies to report to Congress every communication to the public—including every oral communication from 

an agency official—about the five regulatory actions the agency 

issued the most communications on in the previous year. This 

would be unnecessarily burdensome and likely would not be workable for agencies. 

Agency employees are already barred from engaging in ‘‘substantial ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns’’ when those campaigns are 

aimed at encouraging members of the public ‘‘to pressure Members 

of Congress to support Administration or Department legislative or 

appropriations proposals.’’ 1

In addition, legislative provisions in appropriations bills often restrict agencies from using appropriated funds for ‘‘publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.’’ GAO has identified three categories of agency 

communications that are restricted by these appropriations riders: 

(1) covert communications, (2) self-aggrandizement, and (3) purely 

partisan activities.2

Committee Democrats agree that more transparency could be 

helpful in the regulatory process, but this bill is focused instead on 

what agencies may not disclose. This bill is another way for the 

majority to attack agency rulemakings with which they disagree. 

For example, the majority refers to the promulgation of the 

Waters of the United States Rule (WOTUS) in support of the bill. 

However, after reviewing the entire WOTUS rulemaking process, 

GAO concluded: ‘‘Our review of the procedural steps taken indicates that the agencies complied with the applicable requirements.’’ 3

In that case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

Army Corps of Engineers were so concerned with giving the public 

an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule that the public 

comment period was extended to 200 days, during which time the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
13 

4 1d. at 2. 

agencies received more than one million comments and, according 

to GAO, ‘‘conducted 400 meetings nationwide with states, small 

businesses, farmers, academics, miners, energy companies, counties, municipalities, environmental organizations, other federal 

agencies, and many others.’’ 4

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, 

Ranking Member. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING