[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 38 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1782-H1788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Carter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I would like to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, 
Mr. King, to talk about an American hero.


                  Honoring Corporal John Michael Peck

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Judge Carter. It's with honor I take the 
floor tonight. I very much appreciate your yielding, and I understand 
your great respect for the troops and the pain that you suffered down 
at Fort Hood and the involvement that you have had in each and every 
engagement standing up for our military, standing up for our country, 
standing up for our national security.
  Tonight, I step to the floor with your acknowledgment, Judge Carter, 
to honor a real American hero. This American hero that we honor tonight 
here on the floor of the United States Congress is an American hero, 
Corporal John Michael Peck, who's with us here in the audience tonight 
up in the corner and watching the proceedings here in the House of 
Representatives. Corporal Peck is a United States Marine, 3rd 
Battalion, 1st Marine Division.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor this American hero who is from Rockford, 
Illinois. Corporal John Michael Peck is a member of, again, the 3rd 
Battalion, 1st Marine Division. His mother, Lisa Peck, is here with us 
tonight. She was a single mother for 16 years. Michael was born in 
Daytona Beach, Florida, and grew up in Rockford, Illinois. After 
graduating from Antioch High School, he went into the Marine Corps. On 
August 23, 2007, in Iraq, he received his first Purple Heart after an 
explosion and he received a TBI injury. Then, on May 24, 2010, he was 
in Helmand province in Afghanistan, where he received his second Purple 
Heart after an IED explosion nearly cost Corporal Peck his life. John 
lost all four of his limbs.
  Against all odds, and with the help of his mother, he climbed out 
into the light. His progress has been incredible. His fellow marines 
talk of his prowess in the weight room. He is truly a man possessed. 
His attitude and his courage have made all the difference. Like all 
these young men and women, the ones who do the best are the ones whose 
loved ones are there with them each day. And Lisa has been there from 
day one. There should be a medal of honor for those who stand by their 
children and put their lives on hold to help them rebuild theirs.
  John is one of three quads who are over at Walter Reed Army Medical 
Hospital. The other two are Brendon Marocco and Todd Nicely. Their 
heart and their souls are something of beauty to behold. I ask that 
this Nation continue to stand with and for those troops who stood up 
for us; those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, those heroes, such as 
Corporal John Michael Peck, who paid such a high price, and who rewards 
us with his indomitable spirit. And the strength of family and the love 
of a mother, all here in this story, however sad, however tragic, it 
lifts my heart to know that we have Americans that will serve us in 
this way, and Americans who inspire us with their spirit in the 
aftermath of such a service.
  God bless you, Corporal.
  I ask that this poem penned by Albert Caswell in honor of Corporal 
Peck be placed in the Record.

                              What I Gave

     On battlefields of honor bright . . . .
     There are but all of those Magnificent's, who so fight!
     Who but so bring their light . . . .
     All in what they gave!

     Who now so lie in such cold soft quiet 
           graves . . . .
     Teaching us all how to behave!
     Whose family's pain, is something that only heaven can take!
     And then, there are all of those who are so left . . . .
     So left with such pain, so close to death . . . . living day 
           by day!
     All because of what they gave!

     And the ones who live without arms and legs!
     Without eyes and ears, and strong faces . . . . as they . . . 
           .
     All . . . . for . . . . what . . . . they . . . . gave!

     Whose, most brilliant valor no one can ever so take away!
     And all of those children, who now so live without moms and 
           dads . . . . who wake!
     And all of those parents who've so lost the greatest loves of 
           all, as have they!
     As it's for them we now so weep, this very day!
     All because of what they gave!

     So in the night, as you lay your head down to rest . . . .
     While, all of your loved ones you so 
           caress . . . .
     And you realize why you are so blessed, and what you have . . 
           . .
     Remember, all of America's very best!
     And what they gave!

     And John, on that morning after when you awoke . . . .
     And somehow so tried to cope . . . .
     And so saw, all what this war had 
           invoked . . . .
     As your great heart, to you so spoke!
     So spoke of what you gave!

     Quivering, so back then . . . . oh how the tears you made!
     As they rolled down your fine strong 
           chin . . . .
     And your brave heart so began to pound, yes back then!
     As somehow you so tried to comprehend!
     Wishing somehow that it would all so go away!
     All for what you gave!

     As you I had to so make a choice!
     Should, I live or should I die?
     As you who so heard that most inner 
           voice . . . .
     Telling you . . . . telling you to somehow stay!

     As it so spoke to you, all about faith and courage!
     Telling you, to somehow not to be discouraged!
     As you, United States Marine . . . . so marched off all out 
           on your way!

     While, your mother with tears in eyes . . . . so began to 
           pray!
     And she stood behind you John, each and every blessed day . . 
           . .
     All so you could have a fighting chance, and find your way . 
           . . .
     As you Marine, all in your magnificent shades of green . . . 
           . got up on that very day!
     As you took your very first steps, with your most courageous 
           heart leading the way!
     The way to recovery!
     As you so chose life on that day!

     As your new war had just begun!
     As from out of the darkness, you so marched . . . . our 
           Father's Son!
     To so represent him, until your last and so dying days . . . 
           .
     To So Teach Us All!
     To So Reach Us All!
     To So Beseech Us All!
     So Each, and Every Day!
     With what you gave!

     For you were so surely put upon this 
           earth . . . .
     To so teach us all what comes first!
     All in your amazing grace!
     As our tears roll down our face!

     Because, each new morning as you 
           awaken  . . .
     One more step forward, yes dear John you so take!
     All out there upon your most magnificent ways . . . .
     Because, you will walk. . . . and you will 
           run . . . .
     And it's no over, and your are not done!

     You United States Marine, one of the best things this country 
           has ever seen!
     Yes, arms and legs we all need!
     But, without a heart one can not so surely breath!
     As with your heart you now so lead!
     Just moments are all we have!
     Just seconds, to so find the path! Our way!
     To crush hearts! To turn the good into the bad!
     All in our thoughts, and deeds!

     To win wars . . . . all in our parts we 
           play . . . .
     To but give to this our world, but a better day!
     Don't cry for me!
     For I am the one who so made that choice!
     And so raised my hand, and with my voice!
     All for liberty . . . .
     And for something far . . . . far . . . . greater than me . . 
           . .

     But, to be A United States Marine! Oooha!
     All to defend, my sweet Country Tis of Thee!
     And I'd do all again you see!
     For there are no regrets inside of me!
     For wearing those most magnificent, shades of green!

[[Page H1783]]

     As a United States Marine!

     And, for all of my brothers who have so 
           died . . . .
     Who in such cold dark graves of honor now so lie!
     I live for thee!
     As I go out upon my way!

     I carry you all in my heart and soul but with me each day . . 
           . .
     Listen closely, as you will hear God's voice inside of me . . 
           . .
     As I make the best of what he has so left to me . . . .
     And . . . . What . . . . My . . . . Life . . . . Has . . . . 
           So . . . . To . . . . Say . . . .

     As a hero a was not trying to be, but this is what my Lord 
           has chose for me!
     Yea, I'm not half the man I used to be!
     For my true sum, has grown far much more greater don't you 
           see?
     All with what is so left inside of me!
     As this is but the high price we must pay to be free!
     Were but my fine gifts . . . . my two strong arms and legs . 
           . . .
     And all of this I so gave!

     Don't cry for me!
     Yea, Spider Man . . . . aint got nothing on me!
     In life . . . . what steps, have you so taken?
     What difference is your short life, upon this earth so 
           making?
     All in the steps that you are taking!
     Upon, your way!
     You see, I rather run in Heaven with my Lord . . . .
     And limp, here upon this earth each new morn!
     For in Heaven, you need not arms or legs!
     And, that's where I'm going when I finish my last and most 
           final days!
     All because of . . . .
     What . . . . I . . . . Gave!

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Congressman King. That was a wonderful thing 
to do. He is a wonderful American hero, Mr. Peck. We are very proud to 
get to know him, and we wish him well. We are grateful for his spirit.
  Tonight, we are going to talk again about the regulations that are 
going on in this country. I am very pleased to be joined by Congressman 
Geoff Davis of the great State of Kentucky, which happens to be my 
father's home State. Congressman Davis is going to join us, and we are 
going to talk about a one-two punch that we hope to put together for 
regulations.
  Right now, as we've been talking about in the past, we have a tool 
which allows this Congress to review certain major pieces of regulation 
that come from the regulators, that is, from the Departments and 
agencies of the Federal Government. It's called the Congressional 
Review Act. It allows Congress to review every new major Federal 
regulation issued by the government agencies and, by passage of joint 
resolution, to override that regulation.
  The process you go through is that the Federal agencies submit to 
each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. a 
comprehensive report on any major proposed rule. The Congress has 60 
legislative days to pass a joint resolution disapproving the rule. The 
Senate must vote on a CR resolution of disapproval. Now, that's kind of 
where this thing is right now, and that's the tool we have. We've been 
talking about that as we've been talking about the massive number of 
regulations that have just inundated this country since the beginning 
of this administration.
  So, before I yield to my friend for a conversation about the REINS 
Act, which will be the reverse of that and a new tool--and I'll let him 
explain it--just let me tell you something about the amount of 
regulations that have been put into effect during the Obama 
administration.
  It is an epidemic. The Federal Government has issued 3,360 new rules 
and regulations, an average of 13 new rules a day--78 of those new 
rules just last year. A ``major rule'' is a rule that, as I said, may 
result in having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more, a major increase in the cost of prices for consumers or 
significant adverse effects to the economy. By the way, we are just 
getting started, it seems, with regard to what ObamaCare is doing, and 
it is probably going to be the mother of all rulemaking instruments.
  Geoff Davis, Congressman Davis, has a new and better idea, a tool--
although this is a great tool--that I think will function even better. 
So I am going to yield to Congressman Geoff Davis whatever time he 
needs to consume to start our talking about the REINS Act.
  That's not ``rain'' like we pray for over in Texas all the time, is 
it?
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I think it's more the ``reins'' you use in 
Texas to pull back on that bull or that horse that's getting away. It's 
appropriate to Kentucky, too, with our equine culture as well.
  I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  To your point, when we talk about bills, like the health care bill 
that was forced through last year that has so many new rules that are 
going to be propagated over time and the challenges that we're facing 
with an increasing complexity of government, all of these rules are 
placing a burden on the consumer and are leaving virtually no recourse 
for voters and no recourse for our communities. The operationalized 
term would be ``unfunded mandates,'' but I think what we really have to 
come down to is looking at this as costs that are being levied that 
affect every area of our lives.
  The last, probably, five or six administrations have seen a 
tremendous amount of growth in the amount of regulations. As you 
mentioned, over 3,000 new rules and regulations were queued up last 
year. This is a real concern that affects all of us. If we think about 
education and the challenges that our schools have today, with regard 
to No Child Left Behind, which was a well-intended bill in terms of 
goals of improving student performance, when that law was written into 
enough compromising or overly general language to be thrown over the 
wall to the Department of Education, the detailed implementing of 
regulations moved to place a massive unfunded mandate on the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is for disabled 
children or for children who fall into that category.
  It was supposed to be funded at 40 percent of the expected level. It 
has never gotten above 12 percent in any school district in Kentucky, 
in my congressional district. Those funds have to be reallocated from 
elsewhere; and in order to comply federally, we are seeing schools lay 
off teachers, cancel PE programs, and cancel other programs that are 
deemed nonessential for Federal compliance. This doesn't help our 
students. It doesn't help those the law was intended to help.
  When we think about the EPA, certainly we can talk about greenhouse 
gas regulation. There is a case where there is a move on the part of 
the executive branch--regardless of whether a person is Democrat, 
Republican, Libertarian or an independent, the Constitution mandated 
that the legislature, both Houses of Congress, had power of the purse 
and the power to hold the executive branch accountable. The executive 
branch was to execute the laws, not make the laws.
  When there was a Democratic supermajority in the House and in the 
Senate, what we were seeing was cap-and-trade, an energy taxation. The 
production of energy in this country was not able to be accomplished 
because there were not functional majorities in either Chamber for the 
President to sign a bill, which he said in his own campaign would 
necessarily cause utility rates to skyrocket.
  Now we hear the announcement, well, we're going to go ahead and do 
this anyway. Then it comes home full circle in a way that has hit 
almost every community in the country in one way or another, and that's 
the issue of EPA compliance with stormwater or drainage mandates.
  Again, these could be well intended, but we have to look at the 
regulations in context, what they want to achieve. In my own area of 
Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties, in my first year in Congress--
and, actually, I'd been in Congress for about 2 months--the EPA imposed 
a consent decree on three Kentucky counties for $800 million, in effect 
an $800 million tax on one water and sewer district for these upgrades 
which, frankly, in most cases across our communities were entirely 
unnecessary at a standard way beyond what reality was and one that 
imposed a huge, huge burden on working families and on the poor.

  This bothered me for years. We looked at different ways to deal with 
that. The Congressional Review Act was a good attempt, but the 
challenge that we've had with the CRA is that it has only worked one 
time to repeal a regulation. That was the Clinton era ergonomics rule. 
In that case, all the

[[Page H1784]]

stars lined up. We had a House that could pass it, a Senate that could 
pass it, and a President who was willing to sign the repeal of this 
regulation from a prior administration.
  I want to come back to the constitutional point because here you have 
working families and, in fact, towns in my district where the 
compliance cost with the stormwater decree are actually more, in some 
cases, than the actual revenues of the budgets of the towns. We went 
back and forth with different ideas; and in August of 2009, a 
constituent of mine came into my office as we were working through 
different ways to look at reducing and relieving the regulatory burden 
on businesses, on citizens. Let's have regulations in the context of 
their costs and also one with scale.
  This gentleman said to me, How come you all can't vote on these 
things?
  The light bulb went on. We went back to work, approaching it in 
different ways and came up with the REINS Act. It stands for the 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. In the last 
Congress, it was H.R. 3765.
  We started with the simple premise of major rules that have an 
economic impact of $100 million or more cumulatively. Once the 60-day 
comment period is over, instead of being enforced upon a particular 
constituency, as they are today with very little interaction with 
industry and, frankly, with very little heeding of industry in the 
comment areas or in our communities--for example, for things like that 
stormwater bill, for things like No Child Left Behind, for things like 
net neutrality, for things like doing Card Check by regulation versus, 
again, going against the will of the people's elected representatives--
what that would do is, before enforcement, force that rule back up to 
Capitol Hill under a joint resolution.

                              {time}  1930

  It's constitutional. It would have to pass in the House, pass in the 
Senate, and then go to the President's desk for signature. And what 
that would do is be able to give people back in the United States--
Washington, D.C. was one time described as a 10-mile by 10-mile square 
surrounded by reality. Back in the world real, where our taxpayers 
live, where the jobs are created, they would now have people to hold 
accountable, the men in the House and the Senate, if these large rules 
that are imposing such significant economic burdens were imposed upon 
them.
  So, as we moved forward, got a tremendous amount of support for that 
across the business community, across the legal community, citizens; 
and, frankly, local governments have lauded this, and we're looking 
forward to moving that forward. There was so much momentum that we had 
at the end of the last Congress that this was put into the Pledge to 
America and was reintroduced.
  Let me back up, Senator Jim DeMint introduced the Senate version of 
this intact; and then in the new Congress, we reintroduced a slightly 
improved version of the legislation in the House, and the identical 
bill was introduced by our new junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, 
with 23 additional Senate cosponsors. We're up to 134 cosponsors in the 
House of this bill and have had two hearings in the Judiciary Committee 
about it where this discussion on ultimate accountability is there.
  Before I yield back in this portion, the one thing I would share with 
you also is this is not a partisan bill. The opponents of the bill have 
tried to say it is anti-regulation or it is an attempt to go after the 
administration. It is not that at all. In the Bush administration, in 
the Clinton administration, in the Reagan administration, in the Carter 
administration--we can keep going on back--finding rules and 
regulations that were implemented outside what the original intent of 
the Congress had been. You know, in the past we could work around these 
rules and regulations. Economically, now, things are so tight and so 
tough we cannot afford to burden the competitiveness of our businesses 
any longer.
  When we come back, I'll give you some examples of that that will 
personalize this to an additional degree, but I'm really glad you're 
holding this hour tonight to discuss the critical impact of 
regulations, a cost that's approaching $2 trillion a year on the 
American economy. Frankly, the cost of regulation is substantially more 
than the annual tax revenue that is collected by the government.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for explaining 
this to us, and you hit on a bunch of points I think we need to keep 
reminding the American people about because we've all been out there 
living our lives, raising our kids, doing the things with our wives, 
and just getting caught up in living. And on the periphery, we hear of 
something that may interfere with our little business we formed or may 
interfere with a big business that we've got a job in that's going to 
cause issues, and we just tend to say Congress did it.
  When, in reality, most of the things I believe that people hear those 
things about some rule that requires them to put up a barrier or like I 
had one guy tell me, They made me put up water retention barriers in 
the desert in New Mexico where it hadn't rained in 4 years. And he 
thought that was ridiculous; and I said, well, I kind of have to agree 
with that, and I guess there's some reason for it.
  But the point is that wasn't done by Congress. That was done by one 
of these regulators you are talking about. When you write a rule or 
regulation that would cost this country, this society, $100 million, 
then that has a major effect on some human being that lives in this 
country; and I think we have the responsibility as the representatives 
of the people to take a look at that thing and decide if that's the 
right thing to do.
  The way the Congressional Review Act is, they file it and then we 
have to take aggressive action to get a vote on that issue. By the 
REINS Act, it would be mandatory that it be filed and it must have a 
vote. There is no exception as I understand it.
  So if something is going to change $100 million or more of your life, 
you would think the guy you elected or gal that you voted for to come 
here and speak on your behalf ought to have something to say about it. 
That's why I like the REINS Act; it puts a responsible party 
responsible for the things that bureaucrats do. Bureaucrats have the 
ability to make these fancy rules that they're not responsible for. 
They write them; but then, you know, they've got a paycheck, they're 
civil servants, their job's protected with what I would argue is a sort 
of tenure after a certain period of time. They may even be represented 
by a labor union.
  And so they're sitting here safe and sound; and when they write that 
regulatory act, they don't answer to any voters back home to decide 
whether they keep their job, providing a good act or a bad act. They 
and probably a panel of people they are working with decide this is a 
good idea.
  But here's what's going on right now that has many of us very 
concerned. A lot of issues that now we're facing with regulation were 
issues we voted on in this Congress. We discussed in committees in the 
last 2 years when the Democrats were in charge of this House and the 
Senate and the Presidency, and those things they were not able to gets 
passed through both Houses and signed by their President, the 
Democratic President, Mr. Obama, and yet now they're trying to do those 
same things by regulation; and the perfect example is CO2.
  The whole issue of greenhouse gases, basically they could not get a 
vote by both Houses of Congress to support calling greenhouse gases 
noxious gases that should be regulated or should be eliminated. So now 
they just passed a rule, or they're passing a rule, at the EPA and 
declaring it. They got one court to make a ruling in their favor; and 
with that, they're going forward on it. But that issue is in debate in 
this House today, and it will be in debate when the REINS Act brings it 
before this House for a vote.
  That's why if we can get this passed--and I believe we will get 
support, bipartisan support, by both sides of the aisle, both in this 
House and in the Senate, and I'm very hopeful that the President will 
sign it because it's a tool that works for--doesn't matter what party 
you're in because, hey, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that 
Republican Presidents or Republican administrations haven't proposed 
bad regulations, because they have.

[[Page H1785]]

  And it's not a party responsibility here. It's an individual Member's 
responsibility to make sure that we don't write regulations that are 
going to in such a way hinder our ability to do the things of commerce 
that keep jobs being created and so forth that we let the bureaucrats 
run the country. We elect them to run the country. They got hired for a 
job, and I think that anything that has this kind of influence on the 
economy requires a vote of the people, who said I will take 
responsibility for making the voice of the people in my district heard 
in Washington. You're not going to get that voice heard by the 
regulators. It's going to have to be here in Congress.
  I commend my colleague, Mr. Davis, for a good bill, well done, and a 
concept that enhances the liberty and freedom of the American citizens.
  I yield back for your comments.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank you, Judge Carter. The real question 
when it comes down to Presidential support of this, Presidents 
regardless of party don't tend to want to relinquish party, but I think 
from a constitutional prerogative there is so much importance in 
changing the dialogue, the dialogue between the House and Senate on 
Capitol Hill, but also the dialogue between the executive branch and 
the legislative branch.
  To this point, the thing that I would share, President Obama during 
his campaign called for a post-partisan area, and that as soon as his 
legislative agenda did not pass, he moved to want to implement 
everything by regulation that could not get through the House and the 
Senate.
  The reality is, to get to the post-partisan era and to restore 
balance between Congress and the executive branch is to pass a bill 
like this. A senior EPA executive, who has to remain nameless because 
of who this person shared with me, he thought a concept like REINS was 
a great idea for two reasons, not from a partisan perspective--and this 
is somebody in an agency that's regulated.
  And the first thing that he shared with me was his unutterable 
frustration that the Congress often sends overly generic or nonspecific 
or, in fact, many times contradictory titles in bills, health care 
being a specific example of that, where it is so difficult for the 
regulators to try to determine what the intent of Congress was. 
Oftentimes in order to get that interpretation, they come out with 
something entirely against the intent of what people wanted who were 
supporting the bill.

                              {time}  1940

  The other thing that happens in that same vein is legislation is 
often crafted to get a majority of votes in each Chamber and to get a 
conference acceptance between the House and Senate with language that 
creates holes, that creates opportunity for the executive branch to 
legislate or tax by regulation versus working through the regular order 
of the House and the Senate. To me, that's not constitutional.
  I am not an attorney, but the one thing I can say is the Constitution 
reads pretty clearly on who is supposed to legislate. And I believe 
that, frankly, Congress has abdicated, in the past, its responsibility 
to maintain that control because it was easier, usually in a crisis. 
This really began in earnest during the Depression. Growth in the 
regulations related to national security began during the Cold War. We 
have seen the Great Society programs where many other agencies began to 
grow, and it affects us in a huge number of ways.
  The second reason that the gentleman was supportive of a concept like 
the REINS Act was this: that it would force a dialogue for clarity 
between the agency that would have to implement regulations under rules 
that were being written in the House of Representatives and in the 
Senate, it would force that dialogue to make sure that the intent of 
Congress is clear. Instead of having 2,700-page bills that show up 
hours before a vote, the dialogue could be ongoing, reduced down to a 
concise piece of legislation that had very clear intent, very clear 
expectations and metrics, and a clear outcome to maintain context for 
our citizens.
  I would like to touch on a couple of these that affect all citizens. 
The first one, people like to have their privacy protected. The Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the late 1990s that was 
enacted into law was intended to protect patient privacy. It was 
intended to make sure that people's most intimate information would not 
be freely available outside of very legitimate and necessary venues or 
where that person gave permission. That law, known euphemistically as 
HIPAA by its acronym, has accomplished vastly more than the original 
intent of the law, and mostly damage.
  I can give you an example. I was doing what is called a mini 
internship at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in northern Kentucky the 
week that HIPAA implemented. And I watched in the space of that time--
the internship was an opportunity for people in the business community 
to come in and learn more about how the health care infrastructure 
works, business practices that are being implemented. It fosters a 
dialogue between health care professionals. HIPAA ended that because of 
liability concerns. Just simple interaction that had taken place 
before.
  More importantly than that, every doctor's office that I had visited, 
every department of the hospital suddenly saw their paperwork overnight 
double in dealing with the same patients with the same procedures. So 
the cost of actually getting the treatment prepared was, in effect, 
doubled.
  We are seeing nurses no longer do nursing, and it's now the patient 
care assistants. We are seeing doctors no longer doing medicine--it's 
charge nurses and senior nurses on units--because, again, the amount of 
documentation that is required in order to cover the bases on this rule 
have had an impact far out of proportion to the original intent of 
simple privacy protection that could have been accomplished in other 
ways had Congress been more clear.
  On transportation, there is always interest in discussion. As you 
well know, coming from Texas, Texas is different from Kentucky, is 
different from New York, and everybody is different from California as 
trendsetters. We all have uniquenesses in this Nation. It's what makes 
America great. In my part of Boone County, Kentucky, where I live, we 
experienced a tremendous amount of growth: from one tiny subdivision to 
nine subdivisions; a new elementary school; commerce that was going up 
and down Highway 237, known as North Bend Road, a little two-lane road 
that would snake and curve up to the most northern part of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
  Well, originally in our 6-year road plan, it was supposed to be a 
four-lane highway that was going to be built to support all of this new 
traffic. However, some of the new transportation rules got in place 
about green space and bike paths, and this is what we got at the end of 
the day. After tens of millions of dollars, 2\1/2\ years of 
construction work, what we got was a beautiful two-lane highway with 
bike paths and green space in between where a public safety vehicle 
can't be turned around, and two traffic circles. Now the traffic is 
just as bad as it was before all of these millions and millions of 
dollars were spent in order to comply with Federal regulations.
  To me, things like that don't even need to be levied at the Federal 
level. That can be decided at the State or a community level if we want 
to do things like bike paths, if we want to do things like traffic 
circles, if you want to place green space in the middle of that road to 
use Federal transportation dollars that are appropriated to the State.
  Another example that comes to mind, a place that I dropped off some 
suits and shirts this morning--or, actually, my wife did after I came 
to Washington, D.C. early this morning. Nick Bell is an entrepreneur in 
Boone County, Kentucky. Years ago, he started a dry cleaners, known as 
Braxton's Dry Cleaners, with some friends. They have top-notch customer 
service. They go out of their way to grow their business.
  In the late 1990s, Nick had a vision to expand. His service was so 
effective and the quality of care he gave his customers was so good 
that he grew to a point where he had more business than his current 
physical plant could handle in this small dry cleaner. So he did what 
any enterprising entrepreneur would do: He pooled his savings, the

[[Page H1786]]

company revenues, and decided to install an additional dry cleaning 
machine.
  He suddenly found out--this was his first real encounter with the 
regulatory state from the time that he had started his business--that 
the clean water rules had changed after 1996, and he was under a whole 
new set of mandates. Nick was informed that he was going to have to do 
about 18 boreholes into the concrete pad of his little dry cleaner to 
test for potential carcinogens. Dry cleaning fluid was listed a 
potential carcinogen. A potential, I might add. In fact, one oncologist 
told me that you would basically have to drink gallons of the stuff on 
a daily basis in order to induce the pH level or the toxicity level in 
your body to cause cancer to grow. But nonetheless, the rule was the 
rule. The environmental inspector came out to his facility. He did the 
18 boreholes and paid the additional money for that, and then an 
interesting thing happened.

  On one of those boreholes, they discovered one teaspoon of 
groundwater underneath the concrete pad of this business, which created 
numerous jobs for our county. In that teaspoon of water was several 
parts per million of dry cleaning fluid that had apparently been 
spilled on the floor and had leaked through a small fissure. To you and 
me, we wouldn't think twice about that if we spilled some windshield 
wiper fluid or something on our driveway. We would clean it up and we 
would move on. Or maybe some paint falls off of a windowsill that we're 
painting on the outside of our house. Nick was informed immediately 
that he was going to have to remediate that teaspoon of water. He said, 
Well, sir, I can't afford that. I just won't install the dry cleaning 
machine. Then the full encounter with the regulatory state came into 
being. He was told, No, if you don't remediate it to the standard, we 
are going to shut down your business.
  There was no environmental risk. There was no true remediation risk. 
I am speaking as an engineer. There was just no risk. What was at risk 
were the jobs of the people there, the clothing of the folks that were 
trapped in there. And what Mr. Bell had to pay was $60,000 in 
remediation fees for one teaspoon of water. It might have been 
different if Dow Chemical had a major spill, but this is a dry cleaner 
in Boone County, Kentucky. It had a great impact. It made him an 
activist, among other things. These examples are rife.
  I live in the longest river district in the United States, along the 
Ohio River. We have a lot of flooding today that is going on. People 
can't pick up the trash that comes up on their properties, on the 
riverbanks. You know why? Very simple. Under the rules that are laid 
forth in implementing the legislation under the Clean Water Act and 
under the Corps of Engineers, if you reach down and take hold of any of 
that detritus that washes up on your land, you own that for liability 
purposes and are responsible for all the remediation costs of whatever 
that might be. Hence, as you go in businesses up and down our inland 
waterways, you will find all of this garbage, all of this waste that 
has washed up because, by our own laws, the people who want to clean it 
up free of charge to the Federal Government with no overhead to the 
State or local communities--think of the Boy Scouts who want to go out 
on a weekend--they're stopped from doing this and will not do it.
  And finally, the last point that I would make on this: We talk about 
the issues of clean water. I care about clean water. I want to see our 
water clean, our water pure, but we need to take a look at what 
standards are again in context.
  An enterprising new county judge executive in Lewis County, Kentucky, 
Thomas Massie, a brilliant MIT graduate who has patented many 
technology devices, came back home to settle down, to bring these 
practices back home, and he is an expert in sustainable energy. We are 
from a coal State, and he wants to do something that is tremendously 
innovative. He wants to build in this county that doesn't have inherent 
natural resources but is along a long section of the river, to wall up 
some of the large draws, with the large hills that come down to the 
river's edge, and to create, in effect, a hydroelectric generating 
capability with two large reservoirs.

                              {time}  1950

  The proposition was simple: to fill them with water from the Ohio 
River, and then they could naturally be drained or refilled based on 
need, based on precipitation and evaporation. But it would be largely 
sustaining and could generate enough electricity for several counties 
around the area.
  Guess what the new judge ran into? The Environmental Protection 
Agency, because the clean water standard says that if I take one gallon 
of water out of the Ohio River, I cannot put a gallon of Ohio River 
water back into the Ohio River unless it is purer than drinking water.
  This is an issue that's completely out of context. And this is part 
of the challenge I think that we face, that many citizens don't realize 
as we encounter this regulatory culture, that these are the rules that 
hit the pocketbooks of people.
  It's not simply an issue of big business. It's working families, the 
elderly, the working poor, our farmers, our small businesses who create 
jobs are all effected by the $2 trillion in regulations. And 
ultimately, if we are going to compete in a global environment, it's 
not that we want to stop regulation, but we need to bring it into 
context and make it concise, make sure there is real impact and 
something that, at the end of the day, doesn't prevent us from creating 
jobs and doesn't prevent us from competing and keeping our country 
strong in the 21st century.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, you're exactly right. So that people 
understand, many of these regulations, as they look at things, they 
don't look at the big picture of what that regulation was meant to do. 
In fact, I don't think they consider just how far reaching what they're 
doing is going to be. I would venture to guess that when they wrote 
that regulation concerning that particular chemical that had leached 
down through a crack and gotten parts per billion or whatever it was 
into the dirt, that they probably envisioned some big factory dumping 
major chemical deposits out on the ground. They never thought of a mom-
and-pop cleaners that might have a slight crack in the foundation which 
causes a very minute amount to fall down there and then say, You've got 
to remediate like a monster company who dumps all this trash in there 
should have to remediate. I think that the people that were writing 
that were thinking about the big guy, never realizing what they were 
doing on the little guy.
  Last night, I guess it was, I had a really nice invitation from some 
people. There's an event in Austin. I'm going to plug for them because 
it's a great event. It's called South by Southwest. And many people 
think of it as a music festival. There's lots of bands that come in. 
They have lots of live music. Austin is the live music capital of the 
world.
  But there's also a lot of entrepreneurs. High-tech innovators and all 
sorts of people come there to share ideas, to go to seminars about how 
we're going to thrive in the 21st century. It's a great, I believe, 
week-long celebration. It may be longer than that.
  Last night, I was invited to a private meeting between--I'd say 
there's at least 100 to 150 people with ideas, and what they call angel 
investors; that is, people who are willing to look at these ideas and 
maybe be willing to loan startup money to get these companies started.
  The first thing I want to tell you: I don't believe I've ever walked 
into a room where there were more enthusiastic people who thought they 
had a great idea. I mean, it just felt good talking to these young 
people. Many of them, you wouldn't be able to pick them out on the 
college campus from all the rest of the kids on the college campus. 
They look just like all the kids on the college campus, and many of 
them were. But they had an idea, had come up with an idea. These were 
the Michael Dells and the Bill Gates of the future that had an idea, 
and they were gathering with other people with ideas.
  Of course, when we think of this, when we mention Michael Dell and 
Bill Gates and the people in the high-tech industry, we think 
everything is high tech and Internet; but, in fact, some of the ideas 
were just pretty simple. But somebody had a good idea.

[[Page H1787]]

  And one of them I thought was kind of innovative was a rolling 
kitchen. These were gourmet chefs who said, you know, I want to cook. 
I've got good food, but I don't want to have to buy a facility. I want 
to just have a Winnebago with a full kitchen in it and a way to sell my 
food outside the door, and I'm going to sell gourmet food on the street 
like a street vendor. It's an interesting concept, and it seems to be, 
as it was described to me, the beginning of a very successful idea.
  Now, these ideas were there, and there were people who come and 
invest in those things. I met one guy who said, Yeah, you know, 
sometimes you pick a winner and sometimes you don't, but I've picked a 
couple of winners. One of them was Netflix. I got in the first day 
on Netflix. Now we're doing pretty good.

  But what this was, this was the seed corn, if you will, of capitalism 
in America. This is what it's all about. But most of the people that 
had projects there had something to do with a tool that we all are 
learning about, and that is the Internet.
  Now, we have rules coming down from the Federal Government. The FCC 
is putting out rules to grant the Federal Government new power to 
regulate the Internet, restrict access and, thus, stalling this type of 
innovation of these dynamic young men and women that I met last night 
with their great concepts on how to improve life and create a business.
  Our Founding Fathers were very smart. They realized if you give us 
liberty, from that will come new ideas; from those new ideas will come 
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs; from that will come jobs, capital to 
reinvest and grow a thriving economy. We have been living on that basic 
system of private enterprise in this country now since the inception of 
this country, and these young technocrats have learned how to use the 
Internet as a tool to make life better for people. Yet if you ask them 
what they don't want, they don't want the Federal Government regulating 
them.
  Now, the people that are wanting to regulate, they're looking at 
maybe some things they see as problems. I don't know what problems they 
are. Maybe they think somebody is using it to enhance politics other 
than theirs and they're worried about the other guy having access for 
political reasons. Maybe they're worried about some of the bad things 
that are on the Internet. And there are bad things. Our terrorists are 
learning how to make weapons to kill other people on the Internet. But 
they are not realizing that, as they take something that's working and 
stick the Federal Government in there, it probably isn't going to be 
working as good. The Federal Government doesn't do a whole lot to make 
things work well.
  So the unintended consequences of that is they would basically 
destroy this exciting, innovative industry that's being created in this 
country to come up with new ideas that, hopefully, make life better and 
more convenient for all of us and, in turn, hopefully, generate wealth 
for those who have the ideas, because that's what we are all about.
  Right now, using this tool, until we can get Mr. Davis' REINS Act--
which I'm a cosponsor and almost everybody I know is. We're going to 
try to get this thing passed this session of Congress, signed into law 
by the President of the United States, as a tool that all Members of 
Congress should respect. Until that time, we use the Congressional 
Review Act. And here's some things we are looking at in the 
Congressional Review Act.

                              {time}  2000

  The EPA rule disapproving the State of Texas' flexible permitting 
system under the Clean Air Act. We filed H.J. Res. 21, John Carter 
sponsors that. FCC Net Neutrality Rule, H.J. Res. 37, Greg Walden is 
using the Congressional Review Act to look into that. HHS rule on 
medical loss ratio, MLR, requirements under the Patent Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, H.J. Res. 19, I am going after that rule with the 
Congressional Review Act. NESHAP Rule for Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry, H.J. Res. 42. Again, Representative Carter. This rule is 
likely to close 18 cement kilns around the country and destroy good 
American jobs, driving them overseas to places like China and India, 
possibly increasing the mercury pollution in the United States from 
offshore pollution.
  These are just examples of some things we have been working on. We 
have talked about them before. And I can assure you, my office right 
now is daily checking every service we can find to find out about every 
regulation that is being proposed so that we can look at the ones that 
we can be aggressive and take the offense on for the Congressional 
Review Act.
  Once again, the REINS Act would shift the burden, as we say in the 
law, and it would mean that we would have to vote on any major 
regulation as by the definition that Mr. Davis has given us. So both 
these tools would be available to Members of Congress for us to be able 
to look at these administrative rules that are being passed, which are 
basically done by individuals and agencies, not by this Congress, and 
give this Congress, which represents the people, to be responsible for 
whether or not the rule passes. Therefore, if the folks back home want 
somebody to blame, that is what you take this job for. The buck stops 
with your vote. If you support the rule, you are going to be 
responsible for it. And if the folks back home don't like it, you are 
going to own it. But that is what we came up here for. We came up here 
to be responsible for our constituents, to be their voice in 
Washington.
  Maybe my friend, Mr. Davis, would like to comment again. So once 
again I yield to you.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman. And just your point on 
being responsible. One thing that I would share along these lines is 
that one of the jobs that all Members of Congress have is to explain to 
their constituents what is happening in Washington and also to explain 
to Washington what their constituents think. And when we come down to 
these issues with the rules, I think of one thing so critical for us to 
understand is, and I have seen it in my early time here. I saw it 
certainly during the health care debate when people would walk out and 
they would do press conferences and do press releases talking about all 
the great things that were happening. We read the bill in our office, I 
didn't see any of that happening, but it took 3 months and then 6 
months and 12 months, and people were waking up to all these things 
that weren't there, and it created a great backlash. And much of that 
was expressed in frustration at the election because of ultimately this 
growth and intrusion of policy that the American people didn't want.
  By having this check and balance, it does several things. It restores 
transparency so people can see. It forces Members of Congress to 
communicate with their district. If we think a regulation is something 
that is important to have enacted or a law that will empower a 
regulation that is going to have significant reach, we need to have 
that discussion with our constituents so they understand, as well as a 
discussion with the agency community long before that legislation ever 
goes to the floor of the House.
  By bringing about this REINS process, it would take these major rules 
at the end of 60 days back up here for an up-or-down vote. Really, if 
the House and Senate are doing their job and the agency community and 
the executive branch is doing its job, that should be a relatively 
straightforward exercise. But if there is an attempt by the executive 
to step outside the will of the people, then we get into this. And it 
is important.
  I go back to the question of the Congressional Review Act. In 
corollary, not directly tied to this by regulation, but oftentimes in 
the agencies there is an attempt that takes place to fall into a 
routine of operation. And in times of crisis, those are not always the 
most effective thing.
  Many of us remember back in the early days of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Regardless of one's politics, positions on the policy, we 
suddenly found ourselves in a new kind of counterinsurgency that had 
not been expected by the military, had not had the expectation set by 
the administration that this was going to unfold, and in fact they were 
caught by surprise. Because of the promulgation of thousands of 
improvised explosive devices by the fall of 2003, the Army and Marine 
Corps specifically realized we were in a full-blown counterinsurgency 
and had to

[[Page H1788]]

react. The first words out of the civilian bureaucracy and the Defense 
Department were that it would take several years in order to accomplish 
what was necessary because laws would have to be enacted and following 
test doctrines for various programs.
  I think of some of the things I have seen in military programs that 
began 15, 20, 25 years ago and simply die because, by the time 
something gets to a flyable prototype or an executable weapons system, 
it ends up making itself obsolete because there is not that agility to 
respond because of the internal regulations, not even germane to what 
we are talking about tonight, but these rules that govern the mindset 
of how the government operates.
  Well, telling division commanders and brigade commanders and 
regimental and battalion and company commanders, well, it will be a 
couple years down the road, and we will have a solution to your 
immediate combat problem, is not the way Americans think and operate.
  In World War II, we fielded all kinds of technology. What worked was 
made in mass, and it showed the agility of our industrial complex. And 
we were looking for everything, long before this large military-
industrial bureaucracy came into being.

  What it took for Congress to get the up-armored vehicle program into 
theater, and it was an amazing thing after enactment; you were here to 
see that, 39,000 armored vehicles that would not have gone into theater 
specifically in Iraq were there in 16 months, but it took an act of 
Congress to do that, to exert on the executive branch the will of the 
American people. This was even a case when the President agreed and 
wanted this, but even he couldn't overcome the inertia of his own 
agency community. Something not uncommon for Presidents, regardless of 
party.
  Coming back into our world here with the regulations that affect us 
economically in day-to-day time. Restoring accountability, restoring 
the dialogue, restoring the constitutional primacy of the legislature 
allows us to do our job to protect the American people, to make sure 
that their interests are seen, and give them somebody to hold 
accountable at the end of the day. You can't fire the EPA administrator 
or the director of the FCC or the Secretary of Education or any of a 
number of other agency heads if they implement regulations that are not 
what our communities, what our country, what our citizens want. And, 
frankly, it brings an end to this paternalistic government that is run 
by experts that don't necessarily reflect what the will of the American 
people is.
  Your colleague from Texas gave a remarkable speech a couple of years 
ago on the issue of CFC light bulbs. I find it so amazing in the 
mandate that was put down to have CFC light bulbs. In 2007, I remember 
when one was dropped in the Longworth Office Building and the building 
was evacuated over the issue of this. Mr. Poe from Texas read this 
draconian list of regulatory requirements in dealing with a dropped 
light bulb.
  The thing that struck me is it is so expensive to comply with the 
regulations on the production side that none of them are made nor will 
ever be made in the United States of America. They are made in China. 
And I think that is one example that shows this complete dissonance.
  We can restore American economic competitiveness. We can strengthen 
our regulatory framework for real, sound regulations that protect 
consumers, that protect the American people, that protect the integrity 
of our commerce, but do it in such a way so it is in context and not 
putting layer over layer over layer that just increases complexity, 
increases the size and reach of government, and ultimately the cost to 
our pocketbook.
  Mr. CARTER. Those are excellent comments. And those light bulbs are a 
particular sticking point in my life. I don't like being mandated to 
purchase anything, quite honestly, by the government. And it is really 
kind of hypocritical to say everybody has got to use these lights, but 
we can't make them in the country because the regulators won't let us. 
And we create the regulators. So it is just hypocritical.
  I guess what we are trying to say to folks out there and to the 
people in this Chamber is that it is time to take a look at this secret 
world of regulators. And it really is a secret to the American people.
  I don't think I would make a bad estimate if regulations were printed 
on both sides of paper like that size paper; and this Chamber has, 
what, 80 foot ceilings, 100 foot ceilings, and it is probably 40 yards 
long and 20 yards wide? Stacking these regulations on pages like this, 
you would have to have at least two or three of them, probably just to 
cover the IRS Code, much less all the other regulations.
  The voluminous number of regulations that are out there will 
literally boggle your mind. If there is a good reason to have the 
Internet, it is to have somebody help you keep track of the regulations 
probably better than anything I can think of.

                              {time}  2010

  They're there. They interfere with our lives. Some of them help and 
some of them don't. And the people's representatives should have a say.
  The Congressional Review Act is presently giving us a chance to have 
a say, and we hope to bring many of these, actually all of these, to 
the floor of this House for a vote and to the floor of the Senate for a 
vote.
  With the REINS Act passed and signed into law, it gives us another 
way to get the people of this House who represent the people of this 
country to cast a vote on behalf of their citizens back home as to 
whether a major regulation will or will not help this Nation.
  As we sit here trying to take down barriers to creating jobs, if 
there's one thing more than anything else that we've got to do for now 
and for the foreseeable future in this Congress, it is help take down 
barriers and get the entrepreneurial spirit going again and get the 
environment such that people quit sitting on their money and go out and 
hire new people to help them make bigger profits and grow their 
companies by hiring people and giving them a job. That's our number one 
priority. It must be. These regulations, some of them are good, but 
many of them are onerous and prevent these jobs that we're talking 
about.
  I thank the Speaker for his time.

                          ____________________