[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8209-H8238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2011
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 10.
{time} 1400
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect
unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, with Mr.
Denham in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The American people today have been hit by an onslaught of
unnecessary Federal regulations. From the Obama administration's health
care mandate to the increase of burdens on small businesses, government
regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation.
By its own admission, the administration is preparing numerous
regulations that each will cost the economy $1 billion or more per
year. Its 2011 regulatory agenda calls for over 200 major rules which
will affect the economy by $100 million or more each every year.
Employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, are rightly
concerned about these costs and the costs that regulations impose on
their businesses. In a Gallup poll conducted last month, nearly one-
quarter of small business owners cited compliance with government
regulations as their primary concern. That should motivate us to take
action today.
Rather than restrain its efforts to expand government, the
administration now seeks to accomplish through regulatory agencies what
it cannot get approved by Congress. The REINS Act gives the people's
representatives in Congress the final say over whether Washington will
impose major new regulations on the American economy.
More than once this year, the President himself has talked about the
dangers that excessive regulations pose to our economy. He has called
for reviews of existing regulations. He has professed a commitment to
more transparency. The President has stated that ``it is extremely
important to minimize regulatory burdens and avoid unjustified
regulatory costs.''
Unfortunately, the President's actions speak louder than his words.
But rather than make good on its statements, the Obama administration
has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the
previous administration over a similar time period. And the White House
has admitted to Congress that, for most new major regulations issued in
2010, government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits.
It is time for Congress to take action to reverse these harmful
policies. With the REINS Act, we can hold the administration
accountable for its unjustified regulatory assault on America's job
creators; and we can guarantee that Congress, not unelected agency
officials, will be accountable for all new major regulatory costs.
The American people want job creation, not more regulation. The REINS
Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations that burden America's
businesses and job creators.
I thank Mr. Davis of Kentucky for introducing this legislation. I
urge all my colleagues to support the REINS Act, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, H.R. 10 is the mother of all
antiregulatory bills. Since the House was in session during 2010 for
116 legislative days, under this bill--and I invite any of my
colleagues to make any different analysis--the Congress would be
required after 70 days after they receive a rule to act upon it. If you
only have 116 days, legislative days a year, it would be literally
impossible to handle the number of rules that we would get.
Namely, we got 94 rules last year, 116 days. If we were handling
every rule--please, use your arithmetic skills, ladies and gentlemen.
This bill would be unworkable, and it would be impossible for new
regulations to be enacted. But then, maybe that's the whole thrust of
the matter.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who is the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman.
Two years ago, I met with the a constituent who was concerned about
the effects of unfunded EPA mandates on his water and sewer bills. He
wanted to
[[Page H8210]]
know why Congress doesn't vote on new regulations. This simple question
inspired the legislation that we're considering today, and it also begs
a broader question: Who should be accountable to the American people
for major laws with which they are forced to comply?
Since the New Deal, every Congress has delegated more of its
constitutional lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats in
administrative agencies through vaguely written laws. This is an
abdication of Congress' constitutional responsibility to write the
laws.
This practice of excessive delegation of legislative powers to the
executive branch allows Members of Congress to take credit for the
benefits of the law it has passed and then blame Federal agencies for
the costs and requirements of regulations authorized by the same
legislation. Members of Congress are never required to support, oppose,
or otherwise contribute to Federal regulations that are major and
finalized under their watch.
Even more troubling, this practice has enabled the executive branch
to overstep the intent of Congress and legislate through regulation
based on broad authorities previously given the agency. In recent
years, we've seen examples of administrative agencies, regardless of
party, going beyond their original grants of power to implement
policies not approved by the people's Congress.
In several cases, such as net neutrality rules and the regulation of
carbon emissions, agencies are pursuing regulatory action after
Congress has explicitly rejected the concept. In fact, administrative
officials publicly proclaimed the strategy after the results of the
2010 elections, going around Congress by forcing their agenda through
regulation.
In February of last year, The New York Times quoted White House
Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer as saying, ``In 2010, executive
actions will also play a key role in advancing the administration's
agenda.'' True to their word, the administration continues using
regulations as an end around Congress.
The lack of congressional accountability for the regulatory process
has allowed the regulatory state to grow almost unchecked for
generations. Federal administrative agencies issued 3,271 new rules in
2010, or roughly nine regulations per day.
These regulations have a profound impact on our economy. The Small
Business Administration estimated that regulations cost the American
economy $1.75 trillion in 2008, and that's nearly twice the amount of
individual income taxes paid in this country that year. Small
businesses spend an estimated $10,500 per employee to comply with
Federal rules, a considerable burden on the private sector's ability to
create jobs at a time of continued economic struggles.
Today, we can choose to continue on this path, or we can vote to
restore our constitutional duty to make law and be held accountable for
the details. The REINS Act effectively constrains the delegation of
congressional authority by limiting the size and scope of rulemaking
permission.
Once major rules are drafted and finalized by an agency, the REINS
Act would require Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on any major
regulation. Major regulations are those with an annual economic impact
of more than $100 million, as determined by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs. The President would also have to sign the
resolution before it could be enforced on the American people, job
creators, or State and local governments. Every major regulation would
be voted on within 70 legislative days.
The REINS Act was specifically written not to unnecessarily hold up
the regulatory process. Rather, the bill prevents REINS resolutions
from being filibustered in the Senate.
The point of the REINS Act is simply accountability. Each Congressman
must take a stand and be accountable for regulations that cost our
citizenry $100 million or more annually. No longer would Congress be
able to avoid accountability by writing vague laws requiring the
benefits up front and leaving the unpopular or costly elements to the
bureaucrats who will write those elements of the law at some later
date. Whether or not Congress approves a particular regulation, there
will be a clearly accountable vote on the subject that the American
people can see and judge for themselves.
{time} 1410
This ensures the greatest regulatory burdens on our economy are
necessary to promote the public welfare, rather than simply sprouting
from the minds of unelected bureaucrats.
The bill's name as a metaphor for the reins on a horse is fitting.
The purpose of reins is not to keep a horse at a standstill. Reins are
a tool to ensure that the horse knows what is expected of him and is
acting according to the intent and will of the rider.
Likewise, the REINS Act would not stop the regulatory process. It
would improve the regulatory process by ensuring that new major rules
match the intent of Congress and the will of the American people. The
REINS Act would foster greater upfront cooperation between agencies and
future Congresses, resulting in better written legislation and
regulation.
With greater accountability and transparency, regulatory agencies
will have no choice but to write regulations that reflect the need for
sensible standards and take into account the impact regulations have on
American businesses and families.
Similarly, agencies would no longer be able to bypass Congress with
regulations that don't match congressional intent or go too far.
Not all regulations are bad. Many provide needed public safeguards,
help to keep the American people safe, and maintain a level playing
field for businesses to compete. And so good regulations would be
approved by future Congresses, and those that could not withstand the
public scrutiny of a vote in Congress would not.
A commonsense regulatory system with appropriate checks and balances
on the most economically significant rules will help to revive our
stagnant economy and give more businesses the ability to hire thanks to
a better sense of stability and what to expect from Washington going
forward.
The question we're asked today is in effect the same I was asked by
my constituent in August of 2009: Who should be accountable for the
rules and regulations that have the greatest economic impact on our
economy? My answer is the Congress. In an era of high unemployment,
Congress can no longer avoid its responsibility to the American people
for the regulatory burden. Passing the REINS Act today would be a major
step forward in returning to a constitutional, responsible,
legislative, and regulatory framework.
I want to thank Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith for his countless
efforts on behalf of the REINS Act and his leadership, as well as the
more than 200 cosponsors of this bill in the House. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The REINS Act is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills in the
Congress. The only problem, I say to the distinguished author, the
gentleman from Kentucky, is that it won't work. There are only 116
legislative days.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished former chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
This Republican bill is neither effective nor responsible. To
paraphrase H.L. Mencken, eliminating Federal agency rulemaking as we
know it is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Mr. Chairman, despite what the House majority would like you to
believe, our Federal regulatory process is a model the world over.
Delegations from other countries frequently visit our government
agencies to learn how their governments can best ensure public
involvement while maximizing government effectiveness and efficiency.
Why? Because our regulatory system is the most open and the most fair
system in the world.
Current law already guarantees that proposed regulations get widely
published and receive extensive public participation. The proof of that
is that proposed Federal regulations receive hundreds, thousands, even
millions of public comments. The U.S. Forest Service, for example,
received over 1.6 million comments on its roadless rule and held over
600 public meetings.
[[Page H8211]]
And public involvement doesn't stop there. Federal agencies are
required by law to consider and respond to each comment received.
Commenters frequently request and receive comment-period extensions.
And when agencies learn of legitimate problems with their proposed
regulations, they change or withdraw them to address those concerns.
As an additional check on Federal rulemaking, Congress passed the
Congressional Review Act. This law already provides a 60-day waiting
period before a final rule becomes effective. And during that delay,
Congress can disapprove an agency rule by joint resolution.
The fact is that Federal agencies already have the right attitude
about regulation. I think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke summed
up agency regulatory philosophy best: We seek to implement the will of
Congress in a manner that provides the greatest benefit at the lowest
cost to society as a whole.
This bill takes America in the wrong direction--one full of risk and
cost that will put the public's health and safety at great risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join Chairman Conyers in opposing
this wrong legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House
Republican Conference.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it was just a few weeks ago that our Nation celebrated
Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, in the Obama economy, millions could not
give thanks for having a job. In the Obama economy, unemployment
remains mired at near or above 9 percent. In the Obama economy, one in
seven are on food stamps. In the Obama economy, we have seen the fewest
small business startups in 17 years.
That's why, Mr. Chairman, jobs are job number one for House
Republicans.
That's why our jobs bills have been passed; but, unfortunately, 25 of
them are stacking up like cord wood in the Democratic-controlled
Senate. After today, it will be 26 because one of the most important
pro-jobs bills is on the floor today, the REINS Act.
Mr. Chairman, whether I'm speaking to Fortune 50 CEOs out of Dallas,
Texas, where I reside, or small business people in east Texas that I
have the privilege of representing in this body, they all tell me the
same thing: the number one impediment to jobs in America today is the
Federal regulatory burden.
I hear from them each and every day. I heard from the Grasch family
in the Fifth District of Texas:
``As a small business, I have to bring in an additional thousand
dollars a month to break even.'' He's talking about his regulatory
burden. ``This is while consumers have less money to purchase my
services. I will not invest in any further expansion and therefore not
hiring until smarter policies are being conveyed from Washington.''
I heard from the Rossa family, also in the Fifth District, who talks
about the regulatory burden from the President's health care plan:
``My company has laid off all staff, and I myself will file for
unemployment on Monday. That's about 23 people added to the
unemployment rolls next week,'' again due to Federal regulation.
I heard from the Nixon family in the Fifth District of Texas. Federal
regulation, again:
``We are giving up this part of our business. One person's losing
their job. This is just one small example of how excessive government
regulation is stifling business.''
It's the number one impediment, and all we're asking today with the
REINS Act is that if a regulation is going to cost our economy jobs, if
it's going to cost a hundred million dollars or more, let's have
congressional approval. It's common sense. It forces accountability. It
simply weighs the benefit of a regulation to be balanced with the cost
to our own jobs.
Jobs ought to be number one in this House, and the number one jobs
bill we can pass is the REINS Act. I ask for once that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle join me, and let's put America back to
work.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia, Steve Cohen, a ranking subcommittee member in
Judiciary.
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, but I don't appreciate the
relocation. I am from Tennessee, the Volunteer State, and from Memphis,
in particular. But it is appropriate, I guess, that we be a little
confused with States because listening to the debate on the floor, it's
obvious we're a little confused about history and Presidents, too, for
President Obama has been Bush-whacked here on the floor of the House.
It's not the Obama economy, it's the Bush economy that President
Obama saved from going into the second Great Depression that this
country would have suffered in 100 years, saved it from depression with
great actions at a time of bipartisan action that helped save this
country from the Great Depression that it was otherwise looking at. I
think we need to commend President Obama and not Bush-whack him when we
get the chance here in the partisan discussions.
{time} 1420
This bill that has been brought up, H.R. 10, the REINS Act, would
rein in government. It would rein in the opportunity for regulations
that are promulgated by experts in our agencies, experts who have years
of expertise in subject matters, in order to come up with rules and
regulations to implement the laws that we pass.
Now, I am proud to be a Member of the United States Congress. I know
that we have good men and women in this House and that most of the
people are very good men and women. But right now, Congress has a 9
percent approval rating. This bill would tell the American public that
it should take the expertise of the people who are in the agencies and
in the administration and turn it over to the 435 Members of Congress--
535 when including those in the Senate--the least approved government
body that exists.
On the one hand, they decry Congress, and their candidate Mr. Perry
wants us to work half time, but this bill would make us the super-
regulatory commission. We would have to approve every regulation by a
positive vote in the House and by a positive vote in the Senate. We
would have to do it and have the President sign it within 70 days of
promulgation. We'd only have every other Thursday to do this, and we'd
only have debate of 30 minutes on each side. So you'd take the least
respected body of government in the entire United States of America--
maybe of the entire world--and give it a very limited amount of time to
make all of the rules and regulations for the biggest government in the
world.
Talk about clean air. We wouldn't have it. You'd have more dirty
rain. The REINS Act--it should be called the Acid Rain Act. It's
raining outside. It's raining prevarications, fabrications, and canards
upon us, none of which are appropriate for this body or for the
American people.
We've had several bills dealing with regulation in this session, all
of which basically tend to emasculate government. These bills take away
the people's rights to clean air, clean water, safe products, and to
occupational safety and health hazard protection, all of which are
almost second nature to the American public.
I'd ask us to defeat this bill and to protect our environment and our
workers.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. POE of Texas. The mere phrase ``the regulators'' brings fear and
trepidation down into the hearts and souls of small business owners
throughout the fruited plain.
Mr. Chairman, the Code of Federal Regulations is 150,000-pages long.
That's a lot of pages. Those are a lot of regulations. According to the
Small Business Administration, the annual cost of all Federal
regulations in this country was almost $2 trillion in 2008.
Now, do we really need all of those expensive regulations? Good thing
the Federal regulators weren't around when the Ten Commandments were
written--no telling what additional regulations they would have added
to those simple 10 phrases.
It is common sense that Congress should have a say on a regulation
that
[[Page H8212]]
would have a drastic, expensive effect on our economy. So why do my
friends on the other side, who are such big friends of regulations, not
want the regulators to be regulated? I don't understand that.
Remember, we are elected.
The regulators are not.
Congress is the branch of government that is closely connected to the
people, and if Congress approves unnecessary and burdensome
regulations, we have to be accountable to our voters in our districts
for that.
Who do the regulators answer to?
No one. They only answer to their supervisors, who are also
regulators.
When the regulators go to work every day, like most people go to
work, their work assignments are a little different. In my opinion,
they sit around a big oak table, drinking their lattes, they have out
their iPads and their computers, and they decide: Who shall we regulate
today? Then they write a regulation, send it out to the masses, and
make us deal with the cost of that.
All the REINS Act does is ask that the Congress be involved in these
overburdensome regulations.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valuable member of
the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank
Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-
called REINS Act. It's a demonstration of the reign of terror that the
Tea Party-Grover Norquist Republican Party has exacted on Americans
insofar as their health and safety are concerned, and in terms of their
ability as small businesses to compete with Wall Street and Big
Business.
You see, this is a Christmas gift. It's a gift to those who installed
this Tea Party reign in Congress, and this Tea Party reign, the
Republicans in Congress, are doing everything they're supposed to do.
This is the anti-regulatory bill, as the chairman said, that is the
mother of all anti-regulatory bills. In fact, these 25, 26 bills that
have been misnamed ``jobs bills'' that the Republicans have passed are
nothing more than anti-regulatory legislation, sprinkled with a little
antiabortion legislation in there--with not one job to be created.
You're just simply kowtowing to the wishes of those who line your
pockets with gold in order for you to get elected.
This anti-regulatory legislation is turning the clock back on
progress in America. We want to turn it all over to Big Business. This
is what the Wall Street occupation is all about. This is what the Tea
Party is all about.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This bill will make it impossible to
implement critical new regulations that will place some restraints on
the excesses of the business community, and I ask that it be defeated.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10 because
greater congressional scrutiny of major regulations ensures that the
Federal Government is more accountable to the American people.
Poll after poll of small business owners and of medium-sized business
owners will show you that major regulations are holding back their
expansions and the ability for them to hire more workers. Yet you don't
have to rely on polls. You can just go down and talk to the local
businesses in your districts. I had a job forum the other week. Time
and time again, the constant refrain we heard from these business
leaders was that the overly burdensome regulatory environment is
holding back their expansions.
Several months ago, in the beginning of the 112th Congress, I had
some hope because President Obama issued an Executive order that
required agencies to review their regulations to see if we could have a
less burdensome regulatory environment. Unfortunately, what happened
was that those were just words, and were not followed up by actual
action, for, since then, the administration has continued to introduce
new regulations at a rapid rate.
In this year alone, over 73,000 pages of new regulations have been
added to the Federal Register at a cost of $67.4 billion. Mr. Chairman,
I have right here the amount of paper that has been added to the
Federal Register in one week. This is last week's regulations. It's
pretty hefty. Actually, it's 8 pounds, 13 ounces. There are 2,940 brand
new pages of Federal regulations that would stretch, if you laid them
end to end, 2,695 feet.
At this time, there are more than 4,000 new regulations in the
pipeline. Of those, 224 are major regulations that will have an
economic impact exceeding $100 million. So, at a minimum, the annual
economic impact for these new regulations will be $22 billion.
We need to change this. Some of these agencies act outside the
statutory authority granted by Congress, and we must stop this. The
REINS Act is the way to do it, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this measure.
{time} 1430
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of
the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, the
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what is
being asked of this body. I believe it is a nullification of the
Constitution, which I like to carry, and the very distinct definition
of the three branches of government and their responsibilities.
Frankly, our friends are trying to equate this Congress and its do-
nothing record to the work of the executives, and now to create a do-
nothing pathway for the rulemaking process which, as I've indicated on
many of the bills that have already passed, there is a Federal court
process for anyone that wants to challenge the process of rulemaking or
whether or not due process has been denied. So I'd actually say that
what we have here is a complete shutdown of the Federal Government, for
it is asking this Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval for
any major rule to be passed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to you what would happen: Warnings
on cigarette packages would no longer exist; Medicare payments for
those lying in psychiatric hospitals would not be able to be paid; and
the emissions standards for boiler pollutants, hazardous pollutants out
of industrial, commercial, and institutional emissions would go flat;
and we would have a nation that small businesses, I believe, would
argue would also be a distraction from the work that they do.
It is interesting that my friends would want to use the backs of
small businesses to pretend that they are protecting them. First of
all, if they look at their facts, they will note the Obama
administration has passed less rules than the Bush administration.
As I indicated, they will also note that the 111th Congress passed
more constructive bills to help small businesses than this Congress
could ever do, and the fact that they would note that it has been
recorded that this Congress is the largest do-nothing Congress that has
ever existed. It would be helpful if we could pass the payroll tax cut
for 160 million Americans, allow them to infuse dollars, 1,000 or
$1,500, into the small businesses of America.
I will tell you that my small businesses will celebrate that. In
visiting a medical clinic owned by a doctor that had thousands of feet
that he wanted to rehab and expand, he said that payroll tax that was
part of the jobs bill that the President wanted to pass through this
do-nothing House of Representatives would have helped him greatly.
Then we have millions of Americans, 6 million, who are trying to get
unemployment insurance. Here we are down to the last wire telling those
in this blessed holiday season, whatever your faith, that you have to
wait at the door and, in fact, there may not be any room at the inn for
6 million who don't have their unemployment insurance.
I don't want to shut down the government.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
[[Page H8213]]
I don't want to shut down the government. I want a government that
works. Rulemaking is not the demon here; and the process of rulemaking,
if you read it, provides the input and assessment of those who are
concerned.
What this does is involve the President, the Congress, in a scheme
that is so dilatory that we will never do any work in this Congress. I
beg of you to defeat this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to debate H.R. 10
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). REINS would
amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional
approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is
greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the
rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at
executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.
In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of
Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as a
member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the
Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main
functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.
If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule,
it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the
Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields.
Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific
and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of
certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to
effect the change that Americans want. For example extending
unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet,
here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our
economy.
There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.
The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing (on H.R. 3010 a
bill based on the same false premise) clearly debunked the myth that
regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on
behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank,
stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can
lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment
effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans
back to work. For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes: ``Studies on
the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most
regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic
growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and
safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that
the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded
86% since its passage in 1970.''
Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the
Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure
``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong
economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that
increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of
more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.
REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY IS NOT WHY BUSINESSES ARE NOT HIRING WORKERS
The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been
debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy
analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed
``[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda
supported by the business community year in and year out. In other
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious
effort to deal with high unemployment.''
Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of
demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for
not hiring.
At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor
Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence
contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business
investment.''
A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found
that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring
is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''
The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of
its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the
biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent
blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher
materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling
prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''
Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they
need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses,
observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main
Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more
customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our
customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk
and more costs onto us from big corporate actors. . . . To create jobs
and get our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small
businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their
pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free
rein to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force
small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I want to set the record straight. The bill is not antiregulatory but
pro-accountability. It will enable both Republican and Democratic
majorities in Congress to make the final calls on major regulations
that come from administrations of either party. Majorities of either
party can be expected to approve regulations whenever appropriate, but
the key is that Congress always be held accountable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Amodei), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. AMODEI. I thank my distinguished chairman from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, 85 percent of the land in Nevada is controlled by the
Federal Government. Perhaps no other State in the Nation lives with a
more daily, direct impact of the presence of the Federal Government and
its regulatory regime than the Silver State.
Community-driven development proposals that would generate economic
growth often take years longer than they should because of layer upon
layer of regulatory, mandatory gymnastics. Home builders, agribusiness,
mining, manufacturers, retailers, the resort and hospitality
industries, small business in general all lament the gymnastics that
they have to go through to get a permit or even to comply with existing
regulations.
All of that effort in a State, which I am sorry to have to sit up
here and remind you, 85 percent of the land controlled by the Federal
Government, highest unemployment rate in the Nation, highest
foreclosure rate in the Nation. We are trying to generate economic
development, and it's taking years to get a permit because of
regulatory regimes. There is no one that will indicate that that is not
the case.
So when we talk about this issue before us today--and I congratulate
my colleague from Kentucky. When we talk about the job of Congress in
an oversight sense, I think it is entirely appropriate that you revisit
the regulations that are promulgated not out of thin air, but as a
result of the statutes that pass these two Houses. And to revisit that
point and make sure that those regulations bear resemblance to both
sides of the aisles' legislative intent where they're supported is
something we ought to guard zealously; because, the last time I
checked, the Federal-elected officials in the executive branch numbered
two. And it doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from or
what party they come from, I think it's appropriate for those 535 who
send those measures to those folks, check back to make sure that's
being done appropriately.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
senior member of the Education Committee, the gentleman from New
Jersey, Rob Andrews.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, 25 days from now, if the Congress doesn't
act, every middle class family in this country is going to have a
$1,000 tax increase. Twenty-five days from now, if the Congress doesn't
act, doctors who take care of our Medicare patients are going to have a
23 percent cut in the fee they get to see Medicare patients. During
those 25 days, several million Americans who are out there looking for
a job every day are going to receive their last unemployment benefits
check.
These are the issues confronting America today, and what are we
doing?
[[Page H8214]]
We're debating a bill that says that some regulation the government
might do someday in the future should have a procedure where Congress
can reject it. There already is such a procedure.
And for all these terrible regulations we keep hearing about that
have been introduced this year, do you know how many times the majority
has brought to the floor a resolution to reject one of those
regulations? Once.
So this is such a grave threat to the country's economy that the
majority that controls the floor has chosen on one occasion to bring a
regulation to the floor.
What we ought to be doing is canceling out this $1,000-a-year tax
increase on the middle class. What we ought to be doing is making sure
our seniors can see the doctor come January 1. What we ought to be
doing is making sure Americans who are diligent in looking for work
don't run out of employment benefits. But that's not what we're doing.
This is not only the wrong bill, it's the wrong time. Let's put on
the floor a bill that puts Americans back to work and focuses on the
real priorities of the country.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1440
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, with so many American families struggling,
with so many Americans struggling to find work, and businesses
struggling to hire unemployed Americans, it's time to rein in the
Federal Government. It's time to rein in the avalanche of red tape
cascading out of Washington, D.C. and stifling our recovery. It's time
to enact the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011, the REINS Act.
I rise to commend the gentleman from Kentucky, Congressman Geoff
Davis, for his visionary and tireless efforts in moving the REINS Act
to the floor today and for his leadership in this Congress.
You know, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They
represent 99.7 percent of employer firms, and have generated 65 percent
of net new jobs over the past 17 years. Yet today, as most American
small businesses know, our job creators are saddled with too many
regulations and too many regulatory authorities. According to the Small
Business Administration, the average small business faces a cost of
$10,585 in Federal regulation per employee each and every year. The
REINS Act will address that. It will protect jobs and promote small
business growth by ensuring that the legislative branch has the final
say on major regulations before they take effect.
This legislation reforms the rulemaking process by requiring that
Congress approve any regulation that would have an annual economic
impact of $100 million or more. For too long, Congress has delegated
its legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats and agency officials
to determine the rulemaking process. It's time to bring that authority
back into the Congress where the Framers of the Constitution intended
it to be, especially with regard to major rulemaking.
The American people are hurting. The American economy is struggling.
It's time to rein in Big Government and release the inherent power of
the American economy. Again, I urge my colleagues to join with me in a
bipartisan fashion, I hope and trust, in support of this important
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from
Connecticut, the Honorable Jim Himes.
Mr. HIMES. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon, as I frequently do in this
Chamber, a little incredulous at what it is that I'm hearing. I'm
hearing stories about east Texas. I'm hearing about lattes, and I'm
hearing that the number one reason American businesses are not hiring
is because of regulations. It's baloney. There's not a fact in there.
Here's some facts. I wish I had more time to get into these facts.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which studies this stuff, asked
businesses that have been laying people off, why? Regulations was a
negligible answer.
I would love to talk about Bruce Bartlett, financial adviser to
President Reagan, Republican, who said that the notion that regulation
is why this economy is on its back was just plain made up.
If I had more time, I would like to talk about our former colleague,
Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who said the House is moving forward
with bills that would cripple the regulatory system, but they show how
far a party enthralled by its right-most wing is willing to veer from
what has long been the mainstream.
I've got deep problems with this crazy idea that we should have
Congress sign off on every regulation. But my biggest problem, Mr.
Chairman, is that we're standing here today talking about this. I hear
endlessly about the uncertainty associated with these regulations. Mr.
Chairman, I was shocked to look at my schedule tomorrow to see that the
Republican majority is sending me home. And I'm going to talk to people
in Connecticut tomorrow who are uncertain if after next month they're
going to have unemployment insurance available to them because they
don't have a job and they don't have money. And they may not have food
on their table.
Small businesses and an awful lot of Americans with jobs in my
district are uncertain about whether they will see an extension of the
payroll tax that we passed in bipartisan fashion.
Except we're here talking about this, a fraudulent idea followed by a
terrible legislative proposal, instead of dealing with the imminent
expiration of unemployment insurance and payroll tax. Let's talk about
those things. Let's remove the uncertainty for the people we represent.
We represent people who have a lot of uncertainty about whether they'll
have unemployment insurance or the payroll tax cut. Let's deal with
that.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the REINS Act. This
is legislation that will bring forward reform, accountability, and
transparency to the Federal rulemaking process. You know what, it's
time for Congress to act more like a board of directors where we will
have to oversee proposed rules and regulations, especially those that
have a significant economic impact. This bill will absolutely force
accountability. It allows regulations to go forward, but it's also
going to force Congress to analyze, to pay attention, and then finally
to act.
So no longer are we going to see agencies and unelected bureaucrats
being able to promulgate these rules and regulations without having an
appropriate check and balance. There are thousands and thousands and
thousands of these rules and regulations in the pipeline, and over 200,
224 specifically, that have that major economic impact threshold that
would be affected by the REINS Act. That's a cost of over $22 billion,
at a minimum, to the economy.
If we want to help small businesses grow, if we want to grow jobs, if
we want to help our economy get going and jump start it, we need to
remove that cloud of uncertainty that is hanging over the heads of
small and medium-sized businesses in that regulatory environment.
I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership in
leading this reform. I ask for its passage.
Here's an example of a proposed guideline that is of particular
concern to me. The FTC, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the
CDC have a proposal which seeks to restrict advertising, marketing and
sales of food products. As drafted, it would affect 88 of the top 100
most consumed food and would have devastating effects. If this were to
go through, one study estimates it could affect more than 74,000 jobs
in the first year alone.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlelady from Colorado, Diana DeGette, who serves on
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, do we really want to bind Congress to more
votes so we can play Monday morning quarterback for the executive
branch every time it tries to finalize a rule? Don't we have enough
gridlock around here?
[[Page H8215]]
Look around. The REINS Act would grind our government to a halt and
stymie the implementation of regulations to protect consumers and
protect public health and well-being.
Now, look, this bill would add a feedback loop to require Congress to
approve major rules that it has already specifically directed an agency
to promulgate. What we really need are smart people and streamlined
regulations regardless of which party is in charge of Congress.
In 2010 alone, Federal agencies finalized important rules related to
energy efficiency, community disaster loans, weatherization assistance
for low-income people, truth in lending, and better pay for teachers.
All of those rules would be considered major rules under the REINS Act,
and all of those rules would have required congressional approval. Good
luck there with this Congress.
Who would oppose final approval of these rules that protect everyday
Americans? Well, based on the track record of the 112th Congress, some
special interest group would find a way. In fact, the REINS Act would
allow special interests a back-door entrance to have their way and
weaken laws that protect the American people.
Mr. Chairman, we all know standing here today this bill won't become
law; and the majority knows it, too. Why? Because it's a bad idea.
In these last days of the year, what we should be doing is finding a
way to help the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking for a
job by extending their unemployment insurance. We should be helping
middle class Americans by helping extend their payroll tax cuts so that
they can pay for the food and everything else they're putting on their
table. That's what the focus of this Congress should be, not passing
ill-conceived legislation that will only slow down the process even
more.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman.
I rise today in strong support of the REINS Act. This bill is about
representative democracy, transparency, and accountability. The concept
is simple: any new proposed regulatory rule written by the Federal
bureaucracy that has an estimated economic impact greater than $100
million must first come here before the Congress for an up-or-down vote
before implementation.
To get our economy moving, to create jobs, to strengthen the jobs we
have now, and to raise the standard of living of all, we need to
address the impediments to growth--taxes, regulations, health care
costs, and energy costs. The simple truth is Federal regulations have
increased the cost of doing business and contributed to job loss and
stifled new job creation. Even the President has acknowledged this when
he appeared in this Chamber to speak to the American people.
{time} 1450
According to the Small Business Administration, Federal regulations
cost our economy $1.75 trillion a year.
This negative impact is something small business owners, including
farmers, have told me time and again as I have traveled across the 137
towns in my district. Something must be done. It really comes down to
judgment. We want to get these key decisions right. It's about
balancing competing priorities. In the process, certainly we want to
hear the advice of our subject matter experts in the bureaucracy, but
the decision should fall to the people's representatives who can be
held accountable to them, not unelected, faceless bureaucrats.
It's far past time for some transparency and accountability. It's far
past time for the REINS Act. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of
this bill, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Government Oversight
Committee, Mr. Gerry Connolly.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, for the 173rd time this year our friends on the other
side have brought another anti-environmental, anti-public health bill
to the floor. For good reason, this House majority has been identified
as the most stridently anti-environmental Congress in history in a
tragic refutation of Republicans' heretofore historic commitment to
conservation and public safety.
The REINS Act, like the Regulatory Accountability Act passed last
week, has a poetic finality as it would block any and all progressive
regulations largely the legacy of Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Under
Teddy Roosevelt's administration, in response to appalling food
processing conditions described in Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,''
Congress reacted and passed the first comprehensive food safety
regulation. One hundred years later, the REINS Act, on the floor today,
would block even the most commonsense regulations which Congress
mandated just last session--new standards to protect Americans from
deadly contamination by Chinese and Mexican imported foods. The REINS
Act is a worthy piece of legislation for those among us who actually
believe that Chinese factory farms should ship contaminated,
uninspected food directly to American dinner tables.
President Teddy Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act, written by a
Republican Congressman, Congressman Lacey of Ohio, to protect the Grand
Canyon--and thank God they did--when Congress at that time refused to
designate it as a National Park. The REINS Act would prevent Federal
land management agencies from issuing regulations to protect America's
greatest places from degradation by mining and off-road vehicles.
The REINS Act also would block all regulations issued subsequent to
Teddy Roosevelt's administration, including such landmark bills as the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, and
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Along with the Regulatory
Accountability Act, which the House approved last week, the REINS Act
is the most comprehensive, radical assault on American safety and
public health in the last century.
If REINS passes, it will replace the rule of law with the rule of the
jungle. Our friends on the other side know full well that in
commonsense language they have masked the inability of the Federal
Government ever again to issue commonsense regulation to protect public
health and safety in this country. And that would be a tragedy.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the chairman.
Over the past year, I've met with hundreds of businesses throughout
the Eighth District of Pennsylvania, and from each of them I've heard a
common theme: uncertainty from constant new government regulation is
impeding their ability and willingness to invest in our economy, expand
their businesses, and to create jobs. In fact, just last night during a
town hall, one of my constituents, Gallus Obert, lamented at the fact
that new and burdensome regulations have driven small businesses--and
with them, jobs--from Bristol Township in Bucks County.
This should come as no surprise to any of us. Even President Obama
admitted on January 18 that his administration's rules have placed
unnecessary strain on businesses and stifled innovation and stifled job
growth.
Today, small businesses spend more than $10,000 per employee to
comply with Federal regulation. Compliance leads to higher consumer
costs, lower wages, and reduced hiring. At the same time, the number of
new rules and regulations continues to grow with each passing year.
Just as our Tax Code is in need of reform, so is our ballooning
regulatory system. The REINS Act will provide the American people with
both congressional oversight and congressional accountability for
regulations stemming from legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman
from California, the Honorable George Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the ranking member
for yielding.
The legislation before us today would really destroy the ability of
the Congress to create new regulations, to create laws to protect the
health and safety of the American citizens. It would also provide a
great second bite at the apple for every special interest in this
[[Page H8216]]
country that doesn't like the regulations to protect clean water and
safe drinking water and the health and safety of our workers and our
children at play.
If you're wondering what it would look like when we wipe out the
health and safety protections for Americans, you need to look no
further than the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, where an
explosion ripped through the mine and killed 29 miners in April of this
year. That mine was operated as if there were no safety regulations.
They treated their workers as if there were no mine safety rules at all
because they overruled all of those regulations through criminal
activity, through illegal activity, and those miners were forced to
work with essentially none of the value of health and safety
regulations designed to protect their lives.
And what happened in that mine without those regulations and without
the benefit of those safety protections? An explosion ripped through
that mine, traveling 2,000 feet per second, and it consumed the lives
of 29 miners. Twenty-nine workers died, and their families will never
be the same.
That's what happens when you take away the basic worker protections
intended to make our economy function and to keep our workers safe. And
that's what this bill on the floor today would do.
Now it's even more interesting that the man who broke the laws,
created that system of no regulations for the miners in the Upper Big
Branch Mine for his own personal benefit and the benefit of that of the
corporation and at the expense of his workers, may be getting back into
the mining business. Donald Blankenship got an $86 million ``golden
parachute'' after 29 mine workers died in West Virginia. And now he
wants to open a new mine. People who live in coal-mining States like
Kentucky should be aware that a serial violator of basic mine safety
laws is coming to your State soon seeking to operate a mine. Mine
companies under his leadership have engaged in dangerous and deadly
practices that would pose a threat to mine workers in your State.
In the 2 years preceding the explosion of the Massey Company mines,
they were cited over 10,000 times a year for violations. Under this
provision, the coal mines come into Congress, they get the regulations,
they cease to exist, and they can go on their way, and there won't be
10,000 citations for the violation of occupational health and safety to
protect those miners, and other miners will lose their lives like those
in the Upper Big Branch Mine.
I say to my colleagues in this House, you must defeat this incredibly
offensive bill for every American, and you must do so in the name of
these 29 mine workers who were killed in the Upper Big Branch Mine in
West Virginia. They died because a ruthless mine owner gamed the
system. Let us not have them game the system in the Congress of the
United States.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for
yielding me this time and I commend both him and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for bringing this bill to the floor to us at this
time.
Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in his
speech to the Jobs Summit a few months ago said, ``Taken collectively,
the regulatory activity now underway is so overwhelmingly beyond
anything we have ever seen that we risk moving this country away from a
government of the people to a government of regulators.''
I want to straighten out one thing, Mr. Chairman. This bill does not
do away with any of the thousands and thousands of laws and regulations
that are already on the book. It applies only to new regulations, which
will cost businesses and the consumer over $100 million each. I think
the American people would be very surprised if they thought the
Congress did not already act on legislation and laws that would cost
our economy that much money.
We've heard estimates today by the SBA that rules and regulations
cost small businesses almost $2 trillion a year, and anywhere from
$8,000 to $10,000 per employee. We have so many thousands and thousands
of laws and rules and regulations on the books today, Mr. Chairman,
that they haven't even designed a computer that can keep up with them,
much less a human being. People are out there every day violating laws
that they didn't even know were in existence.
{time} 1500
The thousands and thousands of rules and regulations that we have
today make it more difficult to run and maintain a business than at any
other time in this country's history, and they're the cause of why so
many small businesses and medium-size businesses are going under or
being forced to merge and why the big keep getting bigger in almost
every industry.
The REINS Act is a very modest attempt to end Washington's almost
unchecked regulatory power. And it would apply only to regulations
which cost over $100 million annually, so there is nothing even close
to being radical about this bill.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, this very
moderate and reasonable bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored at this time to recognize the
former Speaker of the House, the leader, the gentlewoman from
California, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1
minute.
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to oppose this bill, the so-called REINS Act, and to
urge my colleagues to act now on behalf of jobs for America's workers.
Jobs are the lifeblood of our economic growth and that of the middle
class, which is the backbone of our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, for more than 330 days the Republican majority has
failed to put forward a clear jobs agenda, choosing instead to propose
initiatives that undermine job creation and only benefit the special
interests. Today, as we approach the end of this year, Republicans have
again refused to vote to expand the payroll tax cut for the middle
class and unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own. They risk the economic security really
of all of us--certainly the 99 percent--but we're all in this together,
as our President has said.
Democrats have been clear: We must not go home for the holidays
without extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance
benefits. We shouldn't be leaving hardworking Americans high and dry
over this holiday season without doing their work.
This challenge poses a question: Why are we here? Republicans have
chosen to be here for massive tax cuts for people making over $1
million a year--not having $1 million; making over $1 million a year--
300,000 Americans. Democrats are here for the 160 million Americans
facing tax cut uncertainty because of Republican inaction. But
Democrats are here for everybody, for all Americans, because we all
benefit from a strong middle class with demand injected into our
economy to create jobs.
Indeed, if we fail to act now on the payroll tax cut and unemployment
insurance, consider the consequences of that reduced demand to our
economy. At least 600,000 jobs will be lost. Don't take it from me.
Respective independent economists have stated that. Over 6 million out-
of-work Americans would lose assistance in the beginning of next year.
Now, consider if we do act--and act we must--putting more than $1,500
in the pockets of the typical middle class family. And every dollar
invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of more than $1.50
in economic growth. What's important about that is what it does to
inject demand into the economy.
Money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, that's what we want
this Congress to pass, instead of being so completely wedded to the
idea that if we give tax cuts to the top 1 percent there will be a
trickle-down effect. It hasn't happened.
As we approach the end of this year, Congress has a responsibility to
address America's top priority--job creation and economic growth. It's
time for us to put the interests of working people ahead of the special
interests. We must act now to reignite the American Dream and build
ladders of success
[[Page H8217]]
for anyone willing to work hard and play by the rules, to remove
obstacles of participation for those who wish to do that. We must spur
our economy, put people to work, and strengthen our middle class.
Now, we should not go home for the holidays without passing the
middle income tax--the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and
SGR. And there are other issues that need to be addressed that affect
America's great middle class.
Mr. Chairman, Christmas is coming; the goose is getting fat; please
to put a dollar in a worker's hand.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this REINS Act and to get to
work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the
American people. Only then will we increase demand in our economy,
create jobs, promote economic growth, and put money into the pockets of
160 million Americans. Think of the difference that will make instead
of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth,
is not in furtherance of job creation, is not in furtherance of
strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.
We can't go home without the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits
for all Americans who need them, who have lost their jobs through no
fault of their own.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 10, the REINS Act, because America's
job creators are buried in red tape and need certainty from the Federal
Government in order to create jobs. This bill would provide that.
You know, when I travel up and down eastern and southeastern Ohio, I
hear a recurring theme from the businesses that I meet with: Government
overregulation is strangling their ability to hire new employees,
expand their businesses, innovate, and compete.
Today it costs a business over $10,000 per employee just to comply
with current Federal regulations. This administration that claims it
believes in reducing the burden on small business is in the process of
adding another $67 billion worth of new regulations this year alone.
This administration is burying small businesses, and enough is
enough. The REINS Act will simply return control of the regulatory
process to the American people, who are fed up with unelected
bureaucrats stopping job creation and delaying true economic recovery.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our
final speaker, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, who is
finishing out a brilliant career.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank our great ranking member for allowing me this
time.
It is ironic; we're here today debating a bill supported by those in
the Congress who won't cut taxes for the middle class, but won't budge
when it comes to making permanent the tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Why are we not here today talking about extending the payroll tax
cuts? Why are we not here talking about extending employment benefits?
Why are we not working on a jobs bill? That's what we should be doing.
This Congress cannot--and I echo the words of our leader. This
Congress cannot leave for the holidays without ensuring jobless
Americans have the security of unemployment benefits that will make
their Christmas, their holiday, the rest of their year livable.
I know firsthand what it's like to fall on hard times and need a hand
up.
{time} 1510
Forty years ago, when I was a single mother raising three young
children--my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old--I was lucky enough to
have a job; so I didn't need unemployment benefits. But I did need Aid
for Families With Dependent Children just to make ends meet. My family
needed the compassion of the government and my fellow citizens just to
survive. Without that safety net, I don't know what we would have done.
We cannot abandon people who have been victimized by this sluggish
economy. These are proud people, who aren't just willing to work;
they're desperate to work. There are roughly five unemployed Americans
for every available job. These folks need a life preserver.
Extending unemployment benefits is not just a moral imperative. It
will pump life back into the economy. It will give people money for
their pockets that they can spend in their local communities and in the
shops and grocery stores and other businesses that they will inhabit
and support if they have some money in their pockets.
And I can't believe that there are some on the other side of the
aisle who have been resisting this extension, sticking their finger in
the eye of jobless Americans, while protecting lavish tax cuts for
millionaires and for billionaires. That flies in the face of common
sense and does violence to the very values of who we are as American
people.
One Republican Member even said just recently that, and I quote him,
he said, ``Congress ought to concentrate on paying people to work, not
paying people not to work.'' Except his party hasn't lifted a single
finger to do a single thing about creating jobs in this country. You
can't pay them to work when there is no work.
So I ask you, having experienced what it means to have little kids
that depend on you during hard times, I ask you, do not let these
families down. Extend unemployment benefits. Pass a big, bold jobs
bill. Put Americans back to work, and stop wasting time on the REINS
bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. GERLACH. I thank the chairman. I also want to thank Congressman
Davis of Kentucky for his great leadership on this important
legislation.
While our small business owners are focused on meeting payroll, and
their employees are working hard making products and delivering for
customers, unelected bureaucrats in Washington are putting in overtime
coming up with new rules and regulations.
In 2010 alone, the Federal Government issued 3,200 new regulations
and rules. That's roughly nine rules per day. Complying with all these
regulations costs small business owners, as was mentioned, an estimated
$10,500 per employee each year. At a time when we are trying to create
jobs, we need to have better accountability and transparency in
Congress for the regulatory burdens the Federal Government places on
businesses as we try to rejuvenate our economy.
The REINS Act is a commonsense measure that would do just that,
giving workers and small business owners and others a voice in the
process of approving regulations that will ultimately affect their
jobs, their families, and their communities. This legislation would
make sure that job creators don't have to worry about unelected
bureaucrats imposing regulations on them without the approval of their
elected Representatives.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the Chairman.
The REINS Act provides powerful, commonsense regulatory reform. It
reins in the costly overreach of Federal agencies that stifles job
creation and slows economic growth.
If we want to have jobs, we have to help the job creators. This bill
restores the authority to impose major regulations on those who are
accountable to the voters, their elected Representatives in Congress.
Opponents of the bill resist it for two primary reasons. They say,
number one, it takes too much time for Congress to approve or
disapprove major regulations. Secondly, they say Congress isn't expert
enough to understand whether major regulations should be approved or
disapproved. Both objections amount to one thing: their belief that
Congress cannot be responsible and accountable for major decisions that
affect America's economic life.
[[Page H8218]]
Fortunately, the Framers of the Constitution saw things differently,
and so do most Americans. The Constitution gives Congress the Federal
authority to regulate the economy, not the unelected bureaucrats. If
the Constitution gives the authority to Congress, then Congress should
be willing to accept the responsibility and the accountability for
these decisions.
We should and we will take the time. We should and we will hold
hearings. We should and we will allow amendments on the floor and votes
and, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, transparency, something that the
job creators are not being allowed right now.
This administration has admitted its failure to consider the costs
and the benefits when it imposes major new regulations. This
administration clearly intends to force through the regulatory process
things that they cannot achieve in the people's Congress. They do not
want the transparency. They do not want the constituent input, and they
do not want to have the hearings where experts from all over the
country can give balanced testimony.
The American people struggle enough under the Obama administration's
failed economic policy. It's time for Congress to say, Enough.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act. Let's help the job
creators and vote ``yes.''
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so called
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Just as the
authors went through contortions to generate names with a cute acronym,
so this bill is very . . . This misguided legislation would undermine
the ability of federal agencies to promulgate and enforce safeguards
that protect public health and our environment.
Today again the Majority is showing the American public that they
don't think we have a jobs crisis in America, and that getting
Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the American
economy back on track and helping to create jobs is my first, second
and third priority. Unlike the Majority, I remain committed to creating
jobs immediately and expanding educational opportunity for all
Americans.
The so called REINS Act is legislation in search of a problem.
Federal agencies cannot create rules and regulations without statutory
authority that is granted by Congress, and Congress already has the
ability to overturn agency rules. The REINS Act would require Congress
to vote within seventy days on all major rules, creating an
unprecedented level of uncertainty for the vast number of businesses,
organizations, and other entities that already comply with government
protections affecting food and drug safety and air and water pollution.
The REINS Act puts politics above the safety and health of the
American people. We should let the scientists and experts in the
agencies develop and enforce rules like the Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts that protect all Americans from toxic air pollution and water-
borne illness. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, today, December 7th, is the 70th anniversary
of the brutal sneak attack by the Imperial Empire of Japan on Pearl
Harbor, which unleashed America's involvement in World War II. Victory
over Fascism would come four years later. On this day recalling Pearl
Harbor, the House Republicans are bringing to the floor their own sneak
attack on America's government, and how it works to protect the safety,
security, health and welfare of the American people.
We already have in place today an effective mechanism by which
Congress can overturn regulations by government agencies that are
judged to be unjustified, overly broad, too harsh, excessively
expensive or not in the public interest. There is in place today a
court of appeal for bad regulations. That process is called the
Congressional Review Act, and it provides expedited consideration by
Congress of a measure to veto an offending rule. If Members of Congress
have issues with regulatory overreach by an agency, there is a
constitutional remedy in place today to stop that agency. Moreover,
Congress can pass limits on the agency funding to curtail unwise
activities.
But that is not enough for the House Republicans. They want to
cripple the Executive Branch and its regulatory agencies altogether.
They do so in this bill, by changing the burden of proof in the ability
of agencies to develop and implement rules that are developed, in the
first instance, pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. These are not
rogue agencies; they are implementing policy and directives that
Congress has passed and the President has signed into law.
But H.R. 10 says that no major rule can become law unless and until
Congress passes--and the President signs--a joint resolution approving
the specific regulation. In other words, nothing happens unless
Congress says it is OK--and that means nothing will happen.
Congress is an institution where we cannot even pass all the
individual bills funding the government by the start of the fiscal
year. The last time that happened was in 1994, and it has happened only
three times since 1948. With that track record, it is not credible to
assert that Congress can process hundreds of major rules by government
agencies in a timely fashion.
The deadlock that we see in Congress this year will become perpetual
gridlock for the functioning of the Executive Branch and independent
regulatory agencies.
One suspects, in fact, that this is the true intent of those
supporting H.R. 10: to destroy the workings of our government. And it
is for this reason that I wholeheartedly oppose this bill.
No special interest should be powerful enough to eclipse the public
interest--but this bill lets the special interests who are being
regulated win every time.
If this bill were law, all of the historic legislation we passed into
law during the Obama presidency would be vulnerable to re-litigation by
powerful special interests as agencies work to put into place the rules
to implement those laws. Just this year alone, at risk would be rules
that prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against
people with pre-existing conditions; rules that ban the marketing of
tobacco products to children; rules that improve toy safety and reduce
lead in products; and rules that require higher fuel economy standards
for cars and reduce mercury and other toxic emissions from power
plants.
These are the protections the authors of H.R. 10--and their corporate
backers--want to stop.
I believe profoundly that government is a positive force that serves
its people--and this is what H.R. 10 is really attacking. This is why
H.R. 10 is so offensive to our constitutional system.
In the great debate over the size and scope and role of government--
which is a very legitimate and important discussion--the rhetoric from
the Republicans that has gained the most traction is that regulations
from Washington are ``job killers,'' and that these agencies must be
stopped before they kill more jobs again.
But this is a lie. David Brooks, a very conservative columnist,
assessed these issues this week in the New York Times:
Over the past 40 years, small business leaders have
eloquently complained about the regulatory burden. And they
are right to. But it's not clear that regulations are a major
contributor to the current period of slow growth.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics asks companies why they have
laid off workers. Only 13 percent said regulations were a
major factor. That number has not increased in the past few
years. According to the bureau, roughly 0.18 percent of the
mass layoffs in the first half of 2011 were attributable to
regulations.
Some of the industries that are the subject of the new
rules, like energy and health care, have actually been doing
the most hiring. If new regulations were eating into
business, we'd see a slip in corporate profits. We are not.
There are two large lessons here. First, Republican
candidates can say they will deregulate and, in some areas,
that would be a good thing. But it will not produce a short-
term economic rebound because regulations are not a big
factor in our short-term problems.
Second, it is easy to be cynical about politics and to say
that Washington is a polarized cesspool. And it's true that
the interest groups and the fund-raisers make every
disagreement seem like a life-or-death struggle. But, in
reality, most people in government are trying to find a
balance between difficult trade-offs. Whether it's
antiterrorism policy or regulatory policy, most substantive
disagreements are within the 40 yard lines.
Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of us
would like. They are not tanking the economy.
H.R. 10 is a dangerous bill. It is a direct attack on how our
government works to protect the public interest. It is based on a
completely false premise.
H.R. 10, a bill to veto regulations, deserves its own special veto by
Congress and, if necessary, by the President of the United States.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the
REINS Act. This misguided piece of legislation would do nothing to put
people back to work, it would do nothing to reinvigorate the economy,
and it would do nothing to rein in our debt and excessive deficit.
Worse yet, it would serve to make our government even more
dysfunctional. By prohibiting all major regulations from going into
effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval, the REINS
Act would put up a major roadblock for implementing important consumer
protections, including regulations which help keep our food safe and
prevent Wall Street from rascality that could bring our economy to its
knees again.
[[Page H8219]]
Supporters of this legislation claim that the Obama administration's
excessive regulations are crippling our economy. However, the
conservative columnist David Brooks of The New York Times recently
pointed out that in a recent poll by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
only 13 percent of companies said regulations were a major factor in
why they laid off workers. Interestingly, this number has stayed steady
over time. If overregulation is what is hampering our economy, you
would expect a big spike in this number. This leads Mr. Brooks to
conclude that ``Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of
us would like. They are not tanking the economy.'' I would urge all
members to read this column to help dispel some common myths about the
impact regulations are having on our economy today.
It is important to note that Congress already has the authority to
review regulations before they go into effect. The Congressional Review
Act of 1996 allows Congress to pass a joint resolution to overturn a
regulation to block its implementation. Additionally, all regulations
must be subject to a public comment period, giving this body and
members of the general public ample time to weigh in with their
concerns. Given that these safeguards are already in place, it makes
you wonder if the supporters of the bill seek simply to kill all
regulations, including those that keep pollution out of our air and
water, our armed forces safe, our commerce uninterrupted and our foods
safe to eat.
H.R. 10 is a crass attempt to stop important consumer protections by
those who are fundamentally opposed to any government intervention in
the private sector. I urge all members to oppose this flawed
legislation, and get back to work doing the business of the American
people--producing a balanced plan to reduce our deficit, invest in our
infrastructure, and put the American people back to work.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my
amendment #6, to H.R. 10, ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny'' (REINS). This bill amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
to require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an
economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails
to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is
targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create
jobs. Under current law Congress can provide oversight and disapprove
of a promulgated bill.
My amendment would exempt all rules promulgated by the Department of
Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and
Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very
concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of
Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency.
The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and
complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second-
guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal
challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and
delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health
and safety of millions of Americans at risk.
The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to
be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when
the safety and security of the American people are at risk.
According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute,
public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly
impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last
several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly
outweighed their costs.
There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of
my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it
more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the
case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of
our citizens.
In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top
priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies
foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to
protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat
landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.
Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we
have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have
been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11
do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped
push the United States forward in how protect our nation. Continuing to
make advance in Homeland security and intelligence is the best way to
combat the threats we still face.
The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of
duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have
to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the
protection of our cyber security.
In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically.
The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating
disruption of the operation of information systems for critical
infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and
national security of the United States.
We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to
reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be
exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our
Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that
such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration,
manageable, and cause the least possible damage.
Like other national security challenges in the post 9/11 era, the
cyber threat is multifaceted and without boundaries. Some cyber
attackers are foreign nations that utilize their military or
intelligence-gathering operations, whereas others are either operating
alone or are connected to terrorist groups. In addition, there are
cyber threats that are international or domestic criminal enterprises.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number
of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to US-CERT has
increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber
incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY
2009 (over a 400 percent increase).
The four most prevalent types of cyber incidents and events reported
to US-CERT during FY 2009 were malicious code; improper usage;
unauthorized access and incidents warranting further investigations
(unconfirmed malicious or anomalous activity).
Critical infrastructure in the Nation is composed of public and
private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public
health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base,
information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and
finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.
With cyberspace as their central nervous system--it is the control
system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands
of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber
optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the
healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential
to both our economy and our national security.
In light of an attack that threatens the United State's cyber
protection, Homeland Security officials may need to issue emergency
regulations quickly. Attacks can be sent instantly in cyber space, and
the protection of our critical infrastructure cannot be mitigated by
cumbersome bureaucracy.
As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about
vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in
America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.
More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston
in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for
the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports
in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of
Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along
our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the
direction of DHS.
If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the
port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able
to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without
being subject to the constraints of this bill.
The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only
because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new
information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency
preparedness and response.
Take for example U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which
identifies prosecutorial discretion as ``the authority of an agency
charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the
law against a particular individual.'' When ICE favorably exercises
prosecutorial discretion, it ``essentially decides not to assert the
full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a
given case.''
In the civil immigration enforcement context, prosecutorial
discretion may take the form of a broad range of discretionary
enforcement decisions, including: focusing enforcement resources on
particular administrative violations or conduct; deciding whom to stop,
question, or arrest for an administrative violation; deciding whether a
suspect will be detained or released on bond; and granting deferred
action, granting parole, staying a final order of removal, or other
alternative to obtaining a formal order of removal.
Let me be clear; prosecutorial discretion is not amnesty; it is done
on a case by case basis to ensure that the limited resources ICE has to
work with are put toward removing those who pose a threat to the safety
and security of the American people. Allowing ICE to
[[Page H8220]]
identify and focus on priorities strengthens immigration enforcement by
targeting the right individuals.
Furthermore, ICE Director John Morton issued a memorandum in March of
2011 that outlined the enforcement policies for the agency. Among the
priority enforcement cases were aliens posing a risk to national
security or public safety, recent illegal entrants, and those who are
fugitives or have a history of violating U.S. immigration law.
Director Morton's memorandum indicates that prosecutorial discretion
is by no means widespread, blanket amnesty for undocumented aliens; it
is a law enforcement method used by many agencies, including ICE, under
Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, prosecutorial
discretion allows ICE to allocate its resources to ensure their
enforcement efforts provide for the safety and security of the nation.
Why would this rule need additional scrutiny?
And another major impact rule deals with the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Fee Schedule the final rule will provide DHS with
an average of $209 million in FY2010 and FY2011 annual fee revenue,
based on a projected annual fee-paying volume of 4.4 million
immigration benefit requests and 1.9 million requests for biometric
services, over the fee revenue that would be collected under the
current fee structure. The increased revenue will be used to fund the
full cost of processing immigration benefit applications and associated
support benefits; the full cost of providing similar benefits to asylum
and refugee applicants; and the full cost of similar benefits provided
to others at no change. These are the sorts of rules that are going to
be needlessly hindered by this Legislation.
Again, instead of focusing on jobs we are focusing on regulations
that Congress already has the power to review and prevent its
implementation if and when necessary.
There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted
with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is
important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with
hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist
attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a
nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.
On any given day the city of Houston and cities across the United
States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as:
terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.
Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats.
Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the
interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as
operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and
territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private
sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to
protect the safety and security of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to
ensure that regulations that save lives that are promulgated by the
Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this
legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). It
is unfortunate but not surprising that we are voting on this
legislation today. We are just weeks away from millions of people being
kicked off unemployment insurance and Medicare providers having their
payments cut by 27% making it difficult for seniors to find a doctor or
get access to care. Instead of dealing with those pressing issues we
are voting on another ideological Republican message bill. More false
promises from the Republican House Leadership that jobs will
miraculously appear if we just eliminate rules that keep our food safe
to eat, our air and water clean, and our cars safe to drive.
The REINS Act is aimed at making government less efficient and less
responsive to the issues facing our country. The legislation would make
it nearly impossible for the government to pass regulations. Any rule
developed by an agency through the extensive notice and comment process
that we currently use would now be forced through both houses of
Congress, where majorities would have to affirmatively vote within 70
days or the rule would disappear. Under the REINS Act, proposed rules
would be subject to even more rounds of approval in a new system biased
to ensure that these rules fail to be adopted.
Did any one of the Republican cosponsors of this legislation ever
take a class in government or civics when they were in high school?
Passing a law requires approval of the House, Senate, and then the
President. Congress then delegates the relevant rulemaking to the
agencies because these agencies have the manpower, time and expertise
to develop the appropriate rules. This legislation turns the
relationship between the three branches of government, and our entire
regulatory system, on its head.
Our economy needs a level playing field that protects consumers and
small business from corporate and other special interests. Science-
based regulation helps to create a stable and fair marketplace for
consumers and businesses alike. The REINS Act would further empower big
business to challenge regulations that they disagree with regardless of
the benefits to the public health and welfare. This is yet another
Republican attack on the American middle class intended to please their
corporate benefactors. I cannot support this legislation and I urge my
fellow members to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (REINS
Act), which will ensure that major policy decisions are made by the
people's representatives in Congress and not by unelected bureaucrats.
The bill requires that major regulations cannot go into effect until
approved by Congress. Under current law, these economically significant
regulations go into effect without further action by Congress. This
legislation's sensible reform has important implications for the
consideration of legislation that authorizes regulations that result in
mandatory spending or other budgetary effects. The Congressional Budget
Office's (CBO) longstanding policy is to score legislation providing
such regulatory authority with the full budgetary effects of
implementing that legislation. The rule governing consideration of H.R.
10 added a provision to the bill, titled the Budgetary Effects of Rules
Subject to Section 802 of Title 5, United States Code, that ensures
this practice continues.
Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is
enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or
receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary
effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead,
those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution
approving the major regulation. While this approach would maintain the
principle that the legislation that actually causes the budgetary
effects would be charged with the costs incurred, in practice it would
create potential problems. Because the REINS Act waives all points of
order against the approval resolutions, there would be a potential
circumstance where new mandatory spending or other budgetary effects
would escape Congressional budget enforcement. This provision retains
the current practice of scoring the budgetary impact to the legislation
that creates the rulemaking authority and ensures new spending created
by that legislation would be fully subject to budget enforcement.
I am pleased that this potential problem has been addressed, and I
strongly support this effort to restrain Washington's regulatory
overreach and create a more conducive environment for job creation.
Description of the Ryan Amendment to the REINS Act
The Ryan Amendment self-executed in the rule governing debate for
H.R. 10 amends section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 907) (BBEDCA) in order to ensure
that any budgetary costs associated with approving or disapproving
regulations authorized by legislation are properly accounted for under
the congressional budget process. Section 257 of BBEDCA defines the
budgetary baseline calculated by the Congressional Budget Office and
the Office of Management and Budget. This amendment requires that the
baseline include any changes in budget authority, outlays, or receipts
resulting from regulations necessary to implement a law. Consistent
with this requirement, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office
of Management and Budget will continue to score legislation that
provides the legal authority to promulgate implementing regulations
with the budgetary implications resulting from the regulations.
Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is
enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or
receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary
effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead,
those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution
approving the major regulation. This amendment maintains the current
law practice for scoring the original authorizing legislation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, in recent weeks, the House of Representatives
has taken up three major bills designed to address concerns about
executive agency overreach in regulatory proposals.
I supported the first two bills--H.R. 3010, the Regulatory
Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I
believe they would have improved the current regulatory approval
scheme. The bills alternatively would have codified the use of critical
cost-benefit analyses and the consideration of less costly regulatory
alternatives, and helped to ensure the opportunity for additional
public participation, especially in regard to small businesses. Both
bills contained provisions
[[Page H8221]]
that would have helped to address the concerns of my State, which has
felt under siege in recent months by a raft of regulatory actions
affecting the coal industry and emanating from the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Today, the House is considering H.R. 10, the Regulations in Need of
Scrutiny Act. This bill would require the Congress to approve all major
rules projected to cost $100 million or more. I believe this is, at the
very least, an impractical idea, given the number of rules that would
have to be considered in the midst of other legislative business. It
also raises serious questions about the legal status of rules
promulgated by the executive agencies and approved by the Congress,
subjecting even the least controversial rules to potential litigation
in the courts. In addition, it subjects the Congressional schedule to
the whims of the executive agencies and their regulatory agenda.
But worse still, I believe such a requirement could be detrimental to
the functions of government, the certainty required by business, and
the stability desired for the economy. Considering the inability of the
current Congress to pass important and even popular legislation, the
requirements of this bill would almost certainly put rules, even rules
supported by the business community that endorses this bill and rules
that may be promulgated by future Administrations more favorable to
business, in complete limbo.
In this Congress, bipartisan efforts like the surface transportation
reauthorization have become mired in partisan squabbles; the Federal
Aviation Administration suffered a partial shutdown when a mere
extension of its authority was tangled in a partisan mess. When matters
of such importance to our nation, matters that are clearly necessary to
get our country back on the right economic track, are sidelined
indefinitely, I question whether it is wise to subject so many rules to
the uncertainty of the Congressional approval process. What's more,
when one of the most stringent complaints about the current regulatory
process centers on concerns that proposed regulations are politically
motivated, it makes no sense to further subject them to the whims of an
inherently political institution.
So, while I support critical Congressional oversight of executive
agency rules, more public input in the rulemaking process, better cost-
benefit analyses of the impact on businesses large and small, and the
consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, I must decline to
support H.R. 10.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, the REIN Act is the culmination of all
of the anti-regulation, anti-government and especially anti-President
Obama legislation that has been brought to this body since January
2009.
All of the political gymnastics we and the White House have been put
through has made it extremely difficult for our President who tried
very hard to craft bipartisan solutions to be able to pass much of his
agenda. I am glad that he is now doing whatever he can through
executive orders, because yes--our country cannot wait.
Even today, with only a few weeks before the deadlines, our
Republican colleagues are blocking extending the payroll tax to keep
families from losing about 1,000 badly needed dollars next year, they
are blocking the extension of unemployment benefits which not only
helps families, including children, but is clearly one of the best
stimuli for our struggling economy; and they are blocking even just a
temporary fix to cuts in fairer payments to the doctors who take care
of our elderly and people with disabilities.
But that was not bad enough, now comes the REIN Act to prevent
government from fulfilling its critical role to provide services, and
to protect the safety, health and wellbeing of people of this country.
They claim they are doing this to get Congress to do their job. Well
as far as I can see Congress was doing their job pretty well in the
recent Congresses, but that all ground to a halt with this one.
In all of the over 9 months of this Congress the Republican
leadership has talked a lot about jobs but done absolutely nothing to
create even one and they have held up or weakened laws that would have
created the jobs the American people need.
In fact they have wasted these nine months by insisting on bringing
legislation to the floor with rhetoric that would keep the fringe
elements of their party happy, but go absolutely nowhere and do
absolutely nothing.
This is yet another bad bill, with a bad intent that has wasted our
time.
The people of this country want government to be there to protect
their homes, their money and their retirement, to keep them safe at
work and in their neighborhoods, to provide them with access to quality
health care, to ensure that their children will have a sound education
and meaningful opportunities.
I ask my colleagues to do what the people are calling on us to:
create jobs, extend the payroll reduction and unemployment insurance
and pay our doctors a fairer fee for their services; and to stop
attacking these necessary functions of government. They not only
undermine the role of government, but they are weakening our country
and making us the laughing stock of the world.
They should withdraw the REIN Act, but since they won't, we need to
vote it down and get on with the important issues our fellow Americans
want us to address.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-
called ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act
of 2011.''
Federal agencies issue rules based on statues created when Congress
and the President enact legislation. These agencies devote months and
even years conducting research, gathering expertise from skilled
professionals, and seeking public input when crafting major rules.
Congress relies on these agencies to promulgate these rules, because
they have expertise in a given area. However, this bill would require
that congressional politics play a part in deciding complicated rules
and regulations. By preventing agencies from enacting rules, this bill
could undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public's health
and safety.
Supporters of this legislation make the anecdotal claim that this
bill is needed to stop a plethora of regulations. They forget that
Congress currently has considerable power, even the responsibility at
times, to alter and influence federal rulemaking. Congress has the
power under various means to review and reject rules issued by
executive agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may
pass a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of
receiving the rule. If the President signs the resolution of
disapproval, the regulation is not implemented. Additionally, it is
important to note that federal agencies are only issuing rules to
implement statutes that have been enacted by Congress. Federal agencies
must adhere to the statute when promulgating a rule. Congress can also
impose restrictions on agency rulemaking through the appropriations
process by preventing agencies from using funds to implement or enforce
certain rules. Congress may also revamp rulemaking procedures. In
addition to the Congressional Review Act, Congress has enacted the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the
Paperwork Reduction Act. All of these bills reform the procedures for
federal rulemaking by federal agencies.
This bill before us today is unnecessary and potentially harmful to
the public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, as an administrator and policymaker at the
local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of
common-sense regulations that save lives. I have also seen the
challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that can sometimes
appear to be bureaucracy at its worst. However, in my experience,
regulations tend to be less stringent than necessary rather than overly
strict. While I am very open to discussing how we can make regulations
more effective and efficient, I am extremely disappointed with the
anti-regulatory agenda of the House leadership.
Congress today considers yet another attack on our government's basic
ability to enforce laws that protect public health and the environment.
Every major law requires enforcement by the executive branch of
government, and enforcement requires agencies to write regulations that
explain and make public how that agency is going to enforce the law.
The bills under consideration by the House will stop the regulatory
process in its tracks. Agencies will not be able to enforce new laws or
complete updates to regulations as required by existing laws, such as
the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 10, the REINS Act, requires both the House and the Senate to
vote on every major regulation before that regulation can be enforced,
providing only seventy days to do it. This will allow either house of
Congress to effectively veto any major regulation that would enforce a
law already passed by Congress merely by taking no action.
H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, adds additional
requirements to the regulatory process and overrides standards in
existing laws that protect public health and safety. This bill would
require agencies to analyze not only the direct costs of regulatory
changes, but also vaguely defined indirect costs, as well as costs and
benefits of potential alternative rules. The bill requires agencies in
nearly every case to use the least costly rule, instead of balancing
costs and benefits as required in existing laws. This standard will
make it nearly impossible for an agency to regulate at all, because
there is always an alternative that could be less costly, even if the
public at large bears the much higher cost of less protective rules.
H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, expands the review that
agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations to include an
evaluation of all reasonably foreseeable ``indirect'' costs of
regulations, especially to small
[[Page H8222]]
businesses. Virtually any proposed agency action--even a guidance
document designed to help a business comply with a rule--could be
subject to a lengthy regulatory process. The additional analysis would
make any change to a regulation even more difficult. There are already
more than 110 separate procedural requirements in the rulemaking
process; additional review and analysis will not improve regulations,
but merely add to delay.
These bills add additional steps on top of the current process. For
major regulations the process, from writing a regulation to its
enforcement, can already take four to eight years. If Congress feels at
the end of that process that a regulation is inappropriate in any way,
it already has the authority to vote to overturn that regulation and
direct the agency to start over. These bills are unnecessary.
It's time for Congress to move beyond a debate about repealing
regulations and focus instead on how to make them more effective and
efficient. I strongly oppose these three bills that do not make any
changes for the better, but instead jeopardize important progress on
protecting health and safety.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, the amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules,
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of
House Report 112-311 shall be considered as adopted, shall be
considered as an original bill for purpose of further amendment under
the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 10
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Regulations From the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for
and transparency in the federal regulatory process. Section 1
of article I of the United States Constitution grants all
legislative powers to Congress. Over time, Congress has
excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing
to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability
for the content of the laws it passes. By requiring a vote in
Congress, the REINS Act will result in more carefully drafted
and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and
a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the
American people for the laws imposed upon them.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING.
Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING
``Sec.
``801. Congressional review.
``802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules.
``803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules.
``804. Definitions.
``805. Judicial review.
``806. Exemption for monetary policy.
``807. Effective date of certain rules.
``Sec. 801. Congressional review
``(a)(1)(A) Before a rule may take effect, the Federal
agency promulgating such rule shall submit to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report
containing--
``(i) a copy of the rule;
``(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
``(iii) a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor
rule, including an explanation of the classification
specifically addressing each criteria for a major rule
contained within sections 804(2)(A), 804(2)(B), and
804(2)(C);
``(iv) a list of any other related regulatory actions
intended to implement the same statutory provision or
regulatory objective as well as the individual and aggregate
economic effects of those actions; and
``(v) the proposed effective date of the rule.
``(B) On the date of the submission of the report under
subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule
shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to
each House of Congress--
``(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the
rule, if any;
``(ii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 603, 604,
605, 607, and 609 of this title;
``(iii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 202, 203,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
``(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under
any other Act and any relevant Executive orders.
``(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph
(A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the
chairman and ranking member of each standing committee with
jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives
or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law
under which the rule is issued.
``(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on
each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction by the end
of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date
as provided in section 802(b)(2). The report of the
Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the
agency's compliance with procedural steps required by
paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller
General's report under subparagraph (A).
``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall take effect upon enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802 or as
provided for in the rule following enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is
later.
``(4) A nonmajor rule shall take effect as provided by
section 803 after submission to Congress under paragraph (1).
``(5) If a joint resolution of approval relating to a major
rule is not enacted within the period provided in subsection
(b)(2), then a joint resolution of approval relating to the
same rule may not be considered under this chapter in the
same Congress by either the House of Representatives or the
Senate.
``(b)(1) A major rule shall not take effect unless the
Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval described
under section 802.
``(2) If a joint resolution described in subsection (a) is
not enacted into law by the end of 70 session days or
legislative days, as applicable, beginning on the date on
which the report referred to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is
received by Congress (excluding days either House of Congress
is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of
Congress), then the rule described in that resolution shall
be deemed not to be approved and such rule shall not take
effect.
``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a major rule may
take effect for one 90-calendar-day period if the President
makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written
notice of such determination to the Congress.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the
President by Executive order that the major rule should take
effect because such rule is--
``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
``(C) necessary for national security; or
``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under
this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under
section 802.
``(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review
otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any
rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date
occurring--
``(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days, or
``(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60
legislative days,
before the date the Congress is scheduled to adjourn a
session of Congress through the date on which the same or
succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, sections
802 and 803 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding
session of Congress.
``(2)(A) In applying sections 802 and 803 for purposes of
such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1)
shall be treated as though--
``(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register on--
``(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day, or
``(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the
15th legislative day,
after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
``(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress
under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report
shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
``(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take
effect as otherwise provided by law (including other
subsections of this section).
``Sec. 802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules
``(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution addressing a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii) that--
``(A) bears no preamble;
``(B) bears the following title (with blanks filled as
appropriate): `Approving the rule submitted by ___ relating
to ___.';
``(C) includes after its resolving clause only the
following (with blanks filled as appropriate): `That Congress
approves the rule submitted by ___ relating to ___.'; and
``(D) is introduced pursuant to paragraph (2).
``(2) After a House of Congress receives a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii), the majority leader of that House (or his
or her respective designee) shall introduce (by request, if
appropriate) a joint resolution described in paragraph (1)--
``(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, within
three legislative days; and
``(B) in the case of the Senate, within three session days.
``(3) A joint resolution described in paragraph (1) shall
not be subject to amendment at any stage of proceeding.
``(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred in each House of Congress to the committees
having jurisdiction over the provision of law under which the
rule is issued.
[[Page H8223]]
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee or committees to
which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been
referred have not reported it at the end of 15 session days
after its introduction, such committee or committees shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
resolution and it shall be placed on the calendar. A vote on
final passage of the resolution shall be taken on or before
the close of the 15th session day after the resolution is
reported by the committee or committees to which it was
referred, or after such committee or committees have been
discharged from further consideration of the resolution.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee or committees to
which a joint resolution is referred have reported, or when a
committee or committees are discharged (under subsection (c))
from further consideration of a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order (even
though a previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of
the joint resolution, and all points of order against the
joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint
resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to
amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to
proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to
the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the
joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the
Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the House of Representatives, if any committee to
which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been
referred has not reported it to the House at the end of 15
legislative days after its introduction, such committee shall
be discharged from further consideration of the joint
resolution, and it shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar. On the second and fourth Thursdays of each month it
shall be in order at any time for the Speaker to recognize a
Member who favors passage of a joint resolution that has
appeared on the calendar for at least 5 legislative days to
call up that joint resolution for immediate consideration in
the House without intervention of any point of order. When so
called up a joint resolution shall be considered as read and
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered to its passage without
intervening motion. It shall not be in order to reconsider
the vote on passage. If a vote on final passage of the joint
resolution has not been taken by the third Thursday on which
the Speaker may recognize a Member under this subsection,
such vote shall be taken on that day.
``(f)(1) If, before passing a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), one House receives from the other a joint
resolution having the same text, then--
``(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee; and
``(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the
same as if no joint resolution had been received from the
other House until the vote on passage, when the joint
resolution received from the other House shall supplant the
joint resolution of the receiving House.
``(2) This subsection shall not apply to the House of
Representatives if the joint resolution received from the
Senate is a revenue measure.
``(g) If either House has not taken a vote on final passage
of the joint resolution by the last day of the period
described in section 801(b)(2), then such vote shall be taken
on that day.
``(h) This section and section 803 are enacted by
Congress--
``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is
deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively,
but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be
followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution
described in subsection (a) and superseding other rules only
where explicitly so; and
``(2) with full recognition of the Constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to
the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of
that House.
``Sec. 803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor
rules
``(a) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the
period beginning on the date on which the report referred to
in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60
days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is
adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress),
the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
`That Congress disapproves the nonmajor rule submitted by the
_ _ relating to _ _, and such rule shall have no force or
effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
``(b)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress
with jurisdiction.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term submission or
publication date means the later of the date on which--
``(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under
section 801(a)(1); or
``(B) the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal
Register, if so published.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred
a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not
reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint
resolution) at the end of 15 session days after the date of
introduction of the joint resolution, such committee may be
discharged from further consideration of such joint
resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members
of the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be placed on
the calendar.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is
discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration
of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at
any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion
to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all
points of order against the joint resolution (and against
consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion
is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or
to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other
business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint
resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain
the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the Senate the procedure specified in subsection
(c) or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint
resolution respecting a nonmajor rule--
``(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning
with the applicable submission or publication date, or
``(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was
submitted during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1),
after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the
15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress
first convenes.
``(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint
resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that
House receives from the other House a joint resolution
described in subsection (a), then the following procedures
shall apply:
``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee.
``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in
subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if
no joint resolution had been received from the other House;
but
``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.
``Sec. 804. Definitions
``For purposes of this chapter--
``(1) The term `Federal agency' means any agency as that
term is defined in section 551(1).
``(2) The term `major rule' means any rule, including an
interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to
result in--
``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
``(3) The term `nonmajor rule' means any rule that is not a
major rule.
``(4) The term `rule' has the meaning given such term in
section 551, except that such term does not include--
``(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a
rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages,
prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate or
financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or
acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures
bearing on any of the foregoing;
``(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel;
or
[[Page H8224]]
``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
``Sec. 805. Judicial review
``(a) No determination, finding, action, or omission under
this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.
``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a court may determine
whether a Federal agency has completed the necessary
requirements under this chapter for a rule to take effect.
``(c) The enactment of a joint resolution of approval under
section 802 shall not be interpreted to serve as a grant or
modification of statutory authority by Congress for the
promulgation of a rule, shall not extinguish or affect any
claim, whether substantive or procedural, against any alleged
defect in a rule, and shall not form part of the record
before the court in any judicial proceeding concerning a rule
except for purposes of determining whether or not the rule is
in effect.
``Sec. 806. Exemption for monetary policy
``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.
``Sec. 807. Effective date of certain rules
``Notwithstanding section 801--
``(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes,
or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial,
recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting,
fishing, or camping; or
``(2) any rule other than a major rule which an agency for
good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,
shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.''.
SEC. __. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF RULES SUBJECT TO SECTION 802 OF
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.
Section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Budgetary effects of rules subject to section 802 of
title 5, united states code.--Any rules subject to the
congressional approval procedure set forth in section 802 of
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, affecting budget
authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed to be
effective unless it is not approved in accordance with such
section.''.
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order
except those printed in part B of the report. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 25, line 18, insert ``, including an analysis of any
jobs added or lost, differentiating between public and
private sector jobs'' before the semicolon.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to first thank, if I can, the author of this piece of
legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky, Geoff Davis. Mr. Davis has
distinguished himself among, not only our colleagues, but also, I
believe, his strong support of free enterprise and the people of
Kentucky in doing his job, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here
to help in that endeavor today.
I believe that excessive government regulations are a significant
barrier to the creation of private sector jobs in America today. This
Congress has made job creation a priority. As a matter of fact, we had
the minority leader down talking just a few minutes ago about job
creation and the priority that it needs to represent. And as a result,
we must review regulations which stand in the way of not only having
more jobs, but also the overuse of rules and regulations that prohibit
and add to jobs and job creation.
{time} 1520
That proposal that I believe we need to look at is whether the
benefits outweigh any potential economic harm that might come.
My amendment requires the agencies submitting the report on a
proposal Federal rule to include an assessment of anticipated jobs
gained or lost as a result of its implementation and to specify whether
those jobs will come from the public or the private sector.
This assessment would be part of the cost benefit analysis. It would
be required to be submitted to the Comptroller General and made
available to each Member of the House prior to our consideration of the
rule.
I believe that what we are doing here today is positive, not only a
benefit to the country in terms of recognizing that rules and
regulations are burdening our economic engine, but also we are doing
something about it here today, and I'm very, very proud to be here in
support of this.
Earlier this year, I introduced House Resolution 72, and the House
passed it with a strong bipartisan vote in February. My bill required
authorizing committees in the House to review existing, pending, and
proposed regulations through hearings this year and to report back to
the House with their findings.
The REINS Act today before us is an extension, I believe, of H. Res.
72 and is an important measure to ensure that the government does not
compete against the free enterprise system. And if it does, Congress
should understand that at the time that we pass our laws.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this important addition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. I want to merely start off by recognizing that somewhere
buried in this amendment is the gentleman from Texas' recognition that
regulations could or might create jobs. I want to thank him for that.
There's no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.
Now, we've talked about this for 2 days. But at our hearing in the
Judiciary Committee, one of the anti-regulatory bills that we
considered, we had an American Enterprise Institute witness,
Christopher DeMuth, from the conservative think tank that AEI is, and
he stated in his prepared testimony that focus on jobs can lead to
confusion in regulatory debates and that the employment effects of
regulation, while important, are indeterminate.
I must say to my colleagues that that is exactly the same impression
that I came out of my Judiciary Committee hearing with, and it's the
same impression that I've come to realize is probably accurate in the
debate for the last few days on the floor of the House itself.
I'm concerned about this amendment because it would add to the
analytical burdens of agencies, the speculative assessment of jobs
added or lost, and how many of those jobs would be added or lost in the
public and private sectors.
For these reasons, I conclude that this amendment would not be
helpful, and I am unable to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for
yielding me time, and I also thank him for offering this amendment.
The bill restores to Congress the accountability for the regulatory
decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. As Congress makes
those decisions, one of the most important facts to consider is whether
new regulations produce jobs or destroy them.
The amendment guarantees that when agencies submit new regulations to
Congress, their cost benefit analyses will be made available.
The amendment also assures that agencies will specifically identify
regulations' impact on private and public sector jobs. With that
information, Congress will be in a position to determine whether to
approve the rules. And the American people will be in a postilion to
hold Congress accountable for those decisions.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I believe that the case which we're bringing forth today to Congress
is
[[Page H8225]]
that we believe that jobs should be priority number one for this United
States Congress and for the American people--not just the middle class,
but investors and people who want to have great jobs in this country,
for us to be competitive with the world. For us to do that, we need to
recognize that people in Washington, D.C., who probably wouldn't
recognize the free enterprise system if they saw it put rules and
regulations on people; they don't understand the business; they don't
understand how they operate; and they sure as heck don't understand why
it's important to have a free enterprise system, one which is nimble
and prepared and ready for competition.
I spent 16 years without missing a day of work in the private sector
prior to coming to Congress. During those 16 years, I learned firsthand
about how rules and regulations by the Federal Government and others
can impede not only us and our ability to add jobs but perhaps more
importantly, for us to be competitive. And I want to know today those
people who will support us making sure that we look at a rule and
regulation and understand what the impact on jobs would be.
That's what this vote will be. All Members will have an opportunity
to come down to say, We think that there should be a consideration or
should not be a consideration, at the time a rule will be written by an
agency, what will be the impact of that rule. It would elude me to
understand why someone would not want to include that as part of a cost
benefit analysis.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule that the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget determines
will result in net job creation. This chapter, as in effect
before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after
such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
808. Exemption for certain rules.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise to support my amendment to this dangerous bill, the REINS Act.
My amendment is simple. It would exempt any rule that the Office of
Management and Budget determines would promote job growth from the
bill's congressional approval requirement, which is very cumbersome.
The Republican majority claims that job growth is its top priority,
and if that's the case, then my Republican friends should support this
amendment. In reality, we all know this bill will not create a single
job, and as part of the majority's anti-regulatory agenda, will make it
virtually impossible to implement rules for our health and safety.
This bill does not fine-tune the regulatory process, as the
Republicans say. It will do nothing but make the regulatory process
more bureaucratic and impose unnecessary hurdles for the agencies
seeking to enact rules that protect our health and safety.
The majority has a scare tactic--that is that regulations kill jobs,
and that's nothing but a myth. The National Federation of Independent
Businesses, which describes itself as the leading small business
association representing small and independent businesses, does a
regular survey of small businesses. And it found that the single most
important problem facing small businesses is poor sales, not
regulations.
The REINS Act would delay, if not halt, regulations that are
necessary for the health and safety of our constituents. Further, the
bill would slow down regulations that may actually foster job growth.
Thus, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly
concerned about job growth, I would encourage them to support this
amendment.
I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment because the
regulations that will help put unemployed Americans back to work should
take effect without unnecessary delay.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I could not disagree with the gentleman from Georgia more. It's
obvious which one of us has run a business and which one is talking
about a business.
The reality of the regulatory impact on businesses is huge. All you
have to do is ask small business owners in any of our congressional
districts if they can get credit because of the newly improved FDIC
rules on lending. They will tell you they can't. They can't get credit
because of the new regulations, and banks are being consolidated and
are going under now. We're finding a rash of environmental regulations
throughout the Ohio Valley. Machine tool operators, steel mill
operators and other manufacturers say over and over that they will be
out of business if the cap-and-trade carbon regulations are imposed by
the EPA. These are facts. Health care right now is imposing hiring
freezes with the Affordable Care Act.
Once again, there is no reason under any circumstances that we should
exempt major regulations that do, indeed, have a real impact on hiring,
investment, job creation, and especially on an individual who wants to
take the risk to start a business.
Congress should not abdicate its authority any longer regarding these
rules. We should step up to the plate and be accountable. If we do so,
jobs will be created as a result.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In response, no, I've never operated a
business on Wall Street, and I'm not really concerned about Wall Street
as Wall Street has been getting all of the breaks. This party, the Tea
Party Republicans, seem hellbent on shifting everything in their
direction.
I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am pleased to join my dear friend and
colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, in
offering this amendment as the Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment.
I hold a sign that, I think, speaks to the gist of this amendment,
``Make It In America.'' A number of us have been on the floor of the
House on a regular basis talking about creating jobs and about making
it in America. My good friend from Texas just passed an amendment
without opposition, and I see no reason why the Jackson Lee-Johnson or
Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment cannot be accepted in the very same way.
Bruce Bartlett, one of the senior policy analysts in the Reagan and
George H.W. Bush administrations, observed that regulatory uncertainty
is a canard, an invented canard, that allows those who use it to use
current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business
community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of
opportunism because regulations don't stop you from creating jobs. In
actuality, they provide cleaner air; they provide clean food; they
provide the opportunity of a roadmap so that small and large businesses
can do their work.
The Clean Air Act is a shining example. A lot of regulations came out
of the Clean Air Act. Given that the economy since the Clean Air Act
was passed
[[Page H8226]]
in 1970 under Richard Milhous Nixon, a Republican, it shows that the
economy has grown 204 percent and that private sector job creation has
expanded 86 percent.
I would ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the Johnson-
Jackson Lee amendment. Let's make it in America. Let's ensure there is
a regulatory process that exempts any regulation that creates jobs. I
ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment #2, that I offered
along with my esteemed colleague Mr. Johnson, to H.R. 10 Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). Our amendment would
exempt the Office of Management and Budget once it is determined that
the rules they offer will result in net job creation.
REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require
Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic
impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act
within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted
directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.
In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of
Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as
member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the
Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main
functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.
If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule,
it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the
Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields.
Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific
and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of
certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to
effect the change that Americans want. For example extending
unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet,
here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our
economy.
As we consider REINS, it is important that we not forget that federal
agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure that
proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted.
For every proposed regulation, agencies are required to issue notice
of proposed rulemakings to the industry and market over which they
regulate. Those entities then comment on the rules, and they go through
many rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.
Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to
Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of judicial
review. Arguably, rules and regulations issued by Federal agencies go
through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and
passed by Congress.
Implementing this rule would put a tremendous burden on Congress, and
to be frank, as members elected by our constituencies to represent
their interests, our time could be utilized in a much more effective
manner.
Instead of debating about oversight authority that Congress already
has, we should be focusing on the issues that most concern the American
people, particularly, creating jobs. As our country rebounds from one
of the most severe economic downturns in our history, it is imperative
that we make decisions that will enable our economy to grow and, most
importantly, create jobs. We should be using our judgment in a manner
that would create American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken
immigration system. We should be working to implement an orderly
process for immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves
documentation, and complements our enforcement efforts to make them
more effective.
Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help
our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation
taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is
alive and thriving.
America is a free enterprise society, and small businesses are part
of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast portion of Americans.
We should be ensuring that any consolidation taking place in the
marketplace does not push out small businesses and render them unable
to compete.
In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions
have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are
being cut as a result of last year's United-Continental merger. As we
face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends
meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of
mergers such as United-Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no
more precious jobs are being lost.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up
here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers--
especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the
largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in
American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor
is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return
outsourced jobs to American soil.
Bottom line, Congress has a large responsibility. We carry on our
shoulders the needs of the American people. Our time here is valuable
and our work load is great. We should not further burden this body with
the work that an entire branch of government has already been
commissioned to do, especially since Congress still has oversight
authority.
For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts
should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole
should be our priority.
There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation.
The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing clearly debunked
the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who
appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative
think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs .
. . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the
employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans
back to work. For instance, According to the BlueGreen Alliance, notes:
``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found
that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect,
and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with
these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining
example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job
creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''
Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the
Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure
``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong
economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that
increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of
more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.
The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been
debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy
analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed
``[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that
allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda
supported by the business community year in and year out. In other
words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious
effort to deal with high unemployment.''
Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of
demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for
not hiring.
At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor
Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence
contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business
investment.''
A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found
that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring
is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''
The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of
its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the
biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent
blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher
materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling
prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''
Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they
need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses,
observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main
Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more
customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our
customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk
and more costs onto us from big corporate actors . . .
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs and get
our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small
businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their
pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free
reign to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force
small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to
[[Page H8227]]
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would point out that Gallup has released a survey that shows that
one in three small business owners is worried about going out of
business; and overwhelmingly, the response to this survey across the
United States points to the uncertainty and the unpredictability caused
by regulations.
This bill, the REINS Act, is not antiregulation. It is about more
transparency and accountability in regulation, and it is about having
Congress step up to the plate. It's important that we work together to
restore that trust and confidence in the Congress--that we do our jobs,
that we stand firm, and that we exercise restraint over the executive
branch so that it cannot act in scoring itself on whether jobs are
created.
Let that be done by the Congress, which is held accountable. Let us
stand for the vote and be accountable to our citizens.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The amendment carves out of the bill regulations that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) determines will lead to net job creation.
The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives OMB to
manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too
often, OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's
congressional approval requirement.
In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so
by destroying real, existing jobs and ``creating'' new, hoped-for jobs
associated with regulatory compliance. For example, some Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules will shut down existing
power plants. EPA and OMB may attempt to justify that with claims that
more new, ``green'' jobs will be created as a result.
In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the
jobs winners and the jobs losers. And there is no guarantee that all of
the new, ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist.
The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It
does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose
between new jobs and old jobs.
Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It
chooses the way the Framers intended, in which accountability for laws
with major economic impacts rests with Congress. It rejects the way
Washington has operated for too long, where there is no accountability
because decisions are made by unelected agency officials.
The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 25, line 9, strike ``and''.
Page 25, insert after line 9 the following (and redesignate
provisions accordingly):
``(v) a cost-benefit analysis of the rule; and''.
Page 26, insert after line 11 the following:
``(D) Not later than the later of January 1, 2013 or the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011, each Federal agency shall submit to Congress
appropriate criteria for conducting cost-benefit analyses
under subparagraph (A)(v) for each rule for which that agency
may be required to submit such an analysis.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment is pretty straightforward. The goal here is to
actually codify some of what has been done here just by Executive order
to make sure Congress' intent is actually done regardless of what the
executive branch is considering.
It basically codifies the cost-benefit analysis in statute that we
would like to have. As we all know, a lot of times some of our agencies
get a little overzealous, and some of the cost-benefit analyses that
they do or don't do do not actually reflect a lot of the real-world
criteria by which American men and women in businesses actually
operate. So our goal here is to actually follow through on what is
already existing law but to just codify it so it's not a huge change.
There is a little bit more to it. Right now a lot of the independent
Federal agencies are not subject to this Executive order. Of course,
this amendment would actually codify that they should be. There is no
reason any Federal agency should be exempt from giving Americans the
idea of what it's going to cost and what sort of benefit we're going to
get out of this at the end of the day.
Last but not least, I think one of the big pieces that is very, very
important to know as a veterinarian, a man of science a little bit, are
the assumptions by which these cost-benefit analyses are done. That
oftentimes influences the outcome. It's important for the agencies, the
businesses and, again, others in this country to look at what
assumptions are being made when these cost-benefit analyses are being
done. Sometimes they deserve to be challenged, and sometimes questions
need to be raised. So I think it's extremely important that any cost-
benefit analysis assumptions should be made public and transparent.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I also oppose the amendment. The amendment leaves it to each agency
to determine how we will conduct the cost-benefit analyses of any
regulations. This is regrettable. Each agency will be tempted to design
rules that it can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh
costs. In past administrations when we've seen this attempt done, there
was a divergence of standard; there was no continuity and virtually no
reduction in the regulations or understanding of this across the whole
of government.
The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December
2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses. This improves quality, and it prevents deceptive
actions by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.
Similarly, under executive order 12866, the President has long required
agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. The
amendment undermines that requirement, too.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The amendment leaves it to each agency to determine how it will
conduct cost-benefit analyses of new regulations. This is regrettable.
Each agency will be tempted to design rules that it can manipulate to
claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs.
The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December
2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses. This improves quality and prevents deceptive actions
by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.
Similarly, under Executive Order 12866, the President has long
required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit
analyses. The amendment undermines that requirement, too.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H8228]]
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be postponed.
{time} 1540
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McKinley
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 42, line 23, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert
``$50,000,000''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would reduce the threshold for a major rule from $100 million or more
to $50 million. This would ensure greater accountability.
Let's keep this in perspective. I base this amendment on legislation
that has already been adopted by the House--in 1995--with bipartisan
support which lowered the threshold to $50 million. It passed with a
vote of 277-141 with much of today's leadership who were here at the
time supporting it.
Also, in perspective, in fiscal year 2011, only 2.6 percent of all
the rules were classified as ``major,'' and in 2010 it was only 3
percent that met that criteria. Keep that in consideration. Would you
be satisfied with only 2 or 3 percent of your food being inspected or 2
or 3 percent of the aircraft which we fly?
According to the Small Business Administration, in 2008 it cost the
economy $1.75 trillion in regulations. We just went through a gut-
wrenching supercommittee that tried to reduce $1.5 trillion, but yet we
let, every year, hundreds of billions of dollars pass through without
involvement of Congress.
Since January of this year, we have already seen 67,000 more pages of
regulation, 88 million hours, man-hours, have been lost by businesses
and employers trying to respond to the regulatory reform. None of this
has had congressional oversight or approval.
Canada realizes there needs to be more accountability, and they
require all rules and regs of $50 million or more to come before their
legislative body.
Congress, having jurisdiction of only 2 or 4 percent may be better
than nothing, but I believe America deserves better. We need a system
of checks and balances. No wonder the American people have lost their
confidence in Congress and the Federal Government. I'm hopeful that the
chairman will see the issues that I have raised here today and work
with me on future legislation to correct that.
With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for
yielding me time.
I share my colleague's desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to
major regulations and appreciate his interest in the subject.
I know that recent major regulations have hit West Virginia and the
gentleman's constituents particularly hard. The Environmental
Protection Agency's major regulations that affect energy sources and
power production are among the most troubling.
I look forward to continued discussions with the gentleman on these
and other issues of interest to him.
Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your willingness
to work with me on these issues.
Since Congress deserves to have more specific numbers that have not
been available from GAO and the CBO relative to lowering this threshold
from $100 million to $50 million, I ask unanimous consent, for now, to
withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, strike the quotation marks and second
period.
Page 45, insert the following after line 22:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807, as amended by the Regulations
From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall not
apply in the case of any rule that relates to the safety of
food, the safety of the workplace, air quality, the safety of
consumer products, or water quality. The provisions of this
chapter, as in effect before the enactment of the Regulations
From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall
continue to apply, after such enactment, to any rule
described in the preceding sentence.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
``808. Exemption for certain rules.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment to the deeply flawed bill before
us right now.
Today we continue the majority's politically motivated attacks on
regulations. For the past 2 weeks, we have considered bills designed to
slow down and stop the regulatory process.
The bill before us today doesn't target just the rules that the
majority might like you to believe are problematic; it would hamper all
rulemaking, even those rules that are essential to public health and
safety.
My amendment today seeks to address that issue by exempting the REINS
Act regulations relating to food safety, workplace safety, air quality,
consumer product safety, or water quality.
These issue areas are too important to be impeded by the majority's
need to generate political talking points. Consumers can't be put at
risk because one House of Congress can't get its act together to pass
food safety regulations.
Children at risk from being exposed to toxic substances in toys can't
wait for 535 new regulators to weigh in--that's us, the Members of
Congress. People getting sick from tainted water supplies shouldn't be
put further at risk by a legislative vote from one half of one-third of
the branches of the government.
Today's bill, the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act
to prohibit a majority rule from going into effect unless Congress
enacts a joint resolution of approval, specifically approving the rule.
This is a bizarre, backwards, and unnecessary piece of legislation.
The majority claims to be aiming to streamline the regulatory process
and reduce the negative effects of a bureaucracy on the American people
and on American businesses.
Ironically, however, this bill has the effect of growing the
regulatory process by effectively adding 535 of us additional
regulators to the process. Each Member of Congress will now have to
perform the role of a regulator. Congress will be forced to review the
rules and regulations regarding highly technical matters currently
handled by subject area experts.
This technical complexity is precisely why we have professionals in
the executive branch with subject matter expertise to work on these
rules and regulations. This divide has been the fundamental cornerstone
of the principal of separation of powers.
But Congress is intended to represent the people and enact laws. The
executive branch is intended to implement those laws. That
implementation takes the form of issuing rules, regulations, and
specific guidance on how the law will be implemented.
The REINS Act inappropriately puts Congress into duties that should
be carried out only by the executive branch. Congress does have
oversight responsibility and a duty to monitor implementation, but we
currently have methods to address the problems when they do occur, and
we do not need this bill. The bill also will lead to confusion,
uncertainty, and more gridlock.
Thanks to the REINS Act requirement that Congress affirmatively
approve of every major rule, one House of
[[Page H8229]]
Congress will essentially have a legislative veto over any major
regulation issued.
The worst time for businesses is uncertainty, and the REINS Act
increases it in the regulatory process. After engaging in the process
of helping to shape the regulations through the rulemaking process,
citizens will have to wonder what actions will Congress take. What
legislative deal-making will occur? Will Congress approve of the
regulation? When will Congress approve the regulation?
This uncertainty keeps businesses from investing and from hiring new
workers. More uncertainty under the REINS Act is the opposite of what
we need. Congress should spend more of its time thoroughly considering
enacting legislation. We should have the implementation where it
belongs, in the executive branch. We should continue to monitor
implementation and exercise proper oversight. And in the cases where
correction is needed, use the current legislative tools that we have at
our disposal to address those issues.
I do urge all of our Members to vote for my amendment to protect the
American people.
We don't need more gridlock here in Washington. That's why everybody
back at home is mad at everybody. We need to go on with our work. We
have to make sure that there is a streamlined process so that we can
get small businesses growing again, get people back to work. That's
what the American people want from all of us.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1550
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major
regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace
safety, consumer product safety, clean water, and clean air.
In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the
most cost, do not produce enough benefits, and do not faithfully
implement the intent of the people's representatives in the Congress
and in the Senate.
A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's recent
proposal to control mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power
plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to
achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits.
That is an 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Most of the benefits EPA
identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of
hazardous air pollution. Proponents of the regulation have nothing to
fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations,
Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a
powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time.
Think about this from the perspective of the mercury regulation that
had the 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Who do you think is going to pay
for that? The mistake that is made in the arguments saying that it's
the rich on Wall Street who benefit are entirely wrong. It's
hardworking taxpayers. It's the middle class, the working poor, and the
elderly whose utility rates will be driven through the roof as a result
of a regulation that was imposed against the intent of the Congress.
When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be
able, under the REINS Act, to correct the agency and send it back to
the drawing board. In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a
good regulation that Congress will approve.
It will improve the dialogue between the executive branch and the
Congress. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will
not have to pay for the cost of a misguided major rule made by people
who are not accountable to our voters.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major
regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace
safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air.
In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the
most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully
implement Congress' intent.
A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent
proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power
plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to
achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits.
That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio.
Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing
to do with the control of hazardous air pollution.
Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act.
When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to
approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get
major regulations right the first time.
When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be
able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board.
In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation
that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for
regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major
rule.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
part B of House Report 112-311.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule made by the
Secretary of Homeland Security. This chapter, as in effect
before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after
such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
808. Exemption for certain rules.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
What America wants and what I believe is important to the institution
that we have such great respect for is for Members to work together.
There are a number of amendments that were allowed by the Rules
Committee, and I thank them; and the idea should be that these
amendments improve a bill.
It is obvious that I disagree with this bill because I think it will
literally shut down government. If you cannot pass simple bills that
have been passed out of the House of Representatives to the other body
and they have not yet passed, we've finished one year of the 112th
Congress, how do you think we can manage what is called major
rulemaking? Eighty different rules would have to be approved by the
President, the House, and the Senate. Literally, the American people
would be held hostage.
So this amendment is a cooperative amendment. I think it makes the
bill better. The reason why, we have our soldiers, most likely on the
front lines of Afghanistan. On account of a heinous act of terrorism on
9/11, our soldiers were dispatched to defend this Nation in
Afghanistan. In doing so, they had as their backup the Department of
Homeland Security, a Department whose responsibility is to secure
[[Page H8230]]
the homeland. Simply ask the 9/11 families how serious it is to secure
the homeland.
My amendment would simply say that Homeland Security regulations or
regulations dealing with securing the homeland, making America safe,
would be exempt from this dilatory, long-winded process of approval. We
need urgency when we speak of securing the homeland.
For example, it is well known that we deal not only with a terrorism
potential from around the world, but it is also possible to have a
catastrophic event that deals with a domestic terrorist attack.
I cannot believe that my colleagues would not want to act in a
bipartisan manner and, in particular, with the REINS Act that requires
a voted-on resolution of approval, otherwise the security amendment
does not go into place. I cannot believe that we would not in a
bipartisan way accept the Jackson Lee amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I would point out, first of all, that in a
national emergency, the President of the United States does have the
ability to enact an emergency rule. But what this amendment seeks to do
is shield the Department of Homeland Security from Congress's authority
to approve regulations under the REINS Act. That shield should be
denied.
For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance
deadlines for States to issue secure driver's licenses under the REAL
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 when hijackers used fraudulent licenses to
board airplanes to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues to
extend the deadline.
Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush
administration's no-match rule. That regulation helped companies to
identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law. When
the Obama administration issued its rule to repeal no match, it put the
interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of unemployed
Americans and legal immigrants.
This is the kind of decisionmaking that takes place at the Department
of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can use to
reassert its authority over the legislation rulemaking functions it has
delegated to DHS. The result will be to streamline communication, to
improve communication in crisp and focused pieces of legislation and
regulation. The REINS Act is available to do that.
The point of the REINS Act is accountability, and each Congressman
must take a stand to be accountable for regulations that cost our
citizenry $100 million or more annually.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I think he plays right
into the reason why he should join me and make this a bipartisan
amendment.
Frankly, I don't think we would want to throw out or delay any
process of rulemaking dealing with securing the homeland. I think when
the gentleman was citing licenses, he was speaking 9/11. It is now 11
years, and we have passed a number of rulemakings that have improved
securing the homeland. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee,
I'm quite aware of the progress we've made, such as not having to
address that kind of, if you will, mishap--more than a mishap--but that
kind of lack of communication that we had on 9/11.
The point I want to make is our soldiers are on the front line in
Afghanistan. They are asking, as someone would say on the playing
field, Have you got my back? The Department of Homeland Security is
that Department created from the Select Committee on Homeland Security
which I was on, now in the Homeland Security Committee, to in fact
provide for the security of the Nation. With that in mind, I think it
is untenable to think of thwarting that process.
What we have here in the REINS Act is truly the REINS Act. It is a
stranglehold on moving the Nation forward on good regulations, clean
air, clean water, but in this instance securing the homeland. I believe
that having the President, the Senate, and the House come together in a
reasonable period of time to approve a rule dealing with securing the
homeland while soldiers are on the front line defending us is an
atrocious position to put the securing of the Nation in.
Let me just say this, Bruce Bartlett is a Republican. He said that
the regulatory uncertainty that Republicans talk about is a canard
invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year
in and year out. That's from a Republican.
The question is let's separate the special interests. The REINS Act
is here. They have the majority. More than likely it will pass. But
they're going to ignore our war and our fight to secure the homeland.
{time} 1600
Here on the front line, what are we doing? We're putting a
stranglehold on the rulemaking that will come forward that's attempting
to help the American people. If we have to do something for the
Transportation Security Administration and the security checkpoints and
we need a rule, it's going to be held back because of this process.
I ask for the support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I would like to reiterate that the point of the REINS Act is
accountability. It would not impinge, but I believe it would actually
improve our ability to manage rulemaking and regulation that relates to
security, indeed. The strongest authority in the House of
Representatives who could speak on that very issue spoke in favor of
this bill earlier, Congressman Chris Gibson from New York, who
commanded a brigade in Afghanistan, where that picture was taken, and
also a battalion in Iraq in 2005. And I would defer to his authority
and military experience on that fact.
The real issue is accountability and restoring transparency and
checks and balances to the executive branch so that the American people
do not have the reach of government into their back pockets, into their
personal lives, into their schools, into their communities, and
frankly, in northern Kentucky, even into our sewer pipes, without the
consent of the governed.
With that, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
The amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) from Congress' authority to approve regulations under the REINS
Act. That shield should be denied.
For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance
deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the REAL
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to
board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues
to extend the deadline.
Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush
Administration's ``no-match'' rule. That regulation helped companies to
identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law.
When the Obama Administration issued its rule to repeal ``no-match,''
it put the interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of
unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.
This is the kind of decision making that takes place at the
Department of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can
to reassert its authority over the legislative rulemaking functions it
has delegated to DHS. The REINS Act is available to do that.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 7 printed in part B of House Report 112-311.
[[Page H8231]]
Ms. MOORE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule that relates to
veterans or veterans affairs. This chapter, as in effect
before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after
such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the
item relating to section 807 the following new item:
808. Exemption for certain rules.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is very straightforward. It would exempt our Nation's
veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that H.R. 10 imposes
and adds to the administrative rulemaking process and would
specifically remove veterans from the bill's so-called ``reining''
provisions that require a joint resolution of Congress before an agency
puts forth a major rule to help our men and women in uniform when they
become veterans and after they return home from service.
Many of my colleagues and I disagree with this bill for a variety of
reasons, including the author's premise that reducing the
administration's ability to regulate and promulgate rules will result
in job creation. But whether or not we agree on the direction and
approach to best help and promote America's future, we all agree on
some things. We all agree that the last thing we want to do is to pass
legislation that will delay assistance to those veterans who have
selflessly chosen to fight for our country and deserve every ounce of
assistance we can provide them when they come back home.
Veterans deserve educational opportunity, rehabilitation for
sometimes very severe disabilities, Mr. Chairman, mental health
treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, employment opportunities,
and housing opportunities. Delaying rulemaking authority will have dire
consequences for our veterans.
For example, Mr. Chair, one very disturbing issue for me has been the
high rate of suicides among our servicemembers. We can't delay this
kind of assistance. In fact, last year there were more deaths among our
troops from suspected suicide than deaths from hostile combat.
We're facing an epidemic here at home, too. A recent report from the
Center for New American Security noted that 1 percent of the population
has served in the military, and yet those servicemembers represent 20
percent of all of the suicides in the United States.
Resources for the military are sparse. According to a recent Veterans
Health Administration survey of mental health providers, 40 percent
responded that they could not schedule a new appointment at their
clinic within 14 days; 70 percent of surveyed facilities cited an
inadequate number of staff to treat veterans; and 70 percent said that
they just simply lacked space.
We also know that there's a serious unemployment barrier among our
veterans as they return to civilian life. The unemployment rate among
vets who served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 is 12.1 percent,
substantially higher than the national average that we're so concerned
about now. Unemployment among vets will spike as we end the war in
Iraq. The last 20,000 troops are expected to arrive by the end of the
year from Iraq. We can expect about an additional 10,000 veterans from
Afghanistan to come home before the end of the year, and 23,000 by the
end of 2012.
We just can't delay assistance to our veterans. This has been an
area, Mr. Chairman, where Democrats and Republicans have typically come
together and agreed. Yet H.R. 10, the REINS Act, will have unintended
consequences and dangerous consequences for veterans who, of course,
have received our undying gratitude and support.
I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and support my
amendment because this is not an area where we want to delay services
to them. We don't want to subject our vets to the politics of
Washington and a gridlocked, hyperpartisan Congress that struggles even
to extend unemployment insurance in a recession or the payroll tax to
middle class people, let alone a credit default by something ``so
historically difficult'' as raising the debt ceiling.
I just think that Americans will agree with me that our Nation's
veterans deserve to be excluded from the gridlock that this will
invariably cause. Let's come together once more to adopt this
amendment, Mr. Chair, not just for the troops that need help, but for
the troops that will be here in the near future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I respect my friend from Wisconsin with whom I have worked on
numerous pieces of legislation related to child homelessness and
affordable housing; but in this case I'm going to respectfully disagree
with the premise of the legislation, as a veteran, as a former Army
Ranger, as a flight commander of an assault helicopter unit in the 82nd
Airborne Division and who served in the Middle East.
The one thing that I would say is that nothing in the REINS Act would
in any way inhibit or impede the delivery of services to our veterans,
of whom I have been a champion in my time in Congress on numerous
pieces of legislation. What I would say is the REINS Act would provide
a framework for discussion were there a rule to arise that hit that
cost threshold to assure crisp, clear improvement, particularly in
dealing with backlogs.
When we deal with the VA specifically, I have had area managers of
the Veterans Administration point out specific rules that cause
increased queuing and waiting time that were not being addressed. This
amendment would actually prevent us from being able to address such
things, were they to hit the threshold.
The amendment carves all regulations that affect veterans and veteran
affairs out of the REINS Act congressional approval procedures.
Frankly, the REINS Act supporters honor America's veterans. We have had
America's veterans speaking in favor of this bill throughout the
afternoon.
I believe that ultimately we are going to make decisions that will be
in keeping with the will of the American people and in the best
interests of those veterans as we move forward.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for responding, even though he
doesn't agree with me. I'm just looking at about at least 14 rules that
have been implemented very expeditiously on behalf of our veterans
since September 11. It is chilling to think about the delays that may
be caused by an extra process.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. That's a point that the gentlewoman and I will
agree to disagree on. I believe that we have seen the Congress move in
an expedited manner in national security in dealing with our veterans,
and there would be no difference under this legislation.
Ultimately, we know that Congress must approve all legislation
relating to every agency of the Federal Government, and we'll be doing
our constitutional duty, as I remind everybody listening, to restore
transparency, accountability, and a check-and-balance so that our
citizens and our voters can hold somebody in the government accountable
instead of faceless bureaucrats.
{time} 1610
It's a solution that everyone should support. Congress will be more
accountable.
I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[[Page H8232]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
112-311 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
Amendment No. 5 by Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 236, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 895]
AYES--187
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Gohmert
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Wilson (FL)
Young (FL)
{time} 1637
Messrs. BILBRAY, HERGER, CANTOR, FITZPATRICK, STIVERS, and SCHOCK
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Schrader) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 896]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
[[Page H8233]]
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Bachmann
Castor (FL)
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Gohmert
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Paul
Wasserman Schultz
Young (FL)
{time} 1642
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``present'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 246, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 897]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--246
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
[[Page H8234]]
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Brady (TX)
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Watt
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1645
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 242, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 898]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--242
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Bachmann
Barton (TX)
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Hirono
Kind
Myrick
Nadler
Watt
Webster
Woolsey
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1649
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 240, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 899]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
[[Page H8235]]
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachmann
Bishop (UT)
Castor (FL)
Cummings
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1653
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. West). There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. West, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10) to
amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major
rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 479, reported the bill, as amended by that resolution,
back to the House with a further amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. DeLAURO. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. DeLAURO moves to recommit the bill H.R. 10 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the
following:
``Sec. 808. Protection of Food Safety and Consumer's Right to
Know through Country-of-Origin Labeling
``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule regarding
country of origin labeling. This chapter, as in effect before
the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in Need
of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after such
enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that would exempt
country of origin labeling from the regulations affected by this
legislation. This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not
kill it or send it back to committee. Instead, we will move to final
passage on the bill, as amended.
We have had a heated debate over this act. I have very strong
concerns about it. But however one feels about the legislation before
us, we should all be able to agree on fundamental principles.
First, that it is the responsibility of this institution and of
government to see that the health and the safety of American families
are protected. This includes protecting Americans from unsafe and
contaminated food. And, second, the consumer should be able to know
where the food and products they buy come from so that they can make
informed decisions about their purchases, as they should be able to in
a free market.
That is what country of origin labeling does, and it is why my final
amendment simply exempts country of origin labeling from the underlying
bill before us. It gives us an opportunity to come together in a
bipartisan way to protect the health and safety of our constituents and
to give the American public the information they need and clearly want
to make informed decisions for their families.
More than 40 other countries we trade with have a country of origin
labeling system in place, and the majority of American consumers
continue to support country of origin labeling.
We know that food-borne illnesses are a major public health threat.
They account for roughly 48 million illnesses, 100,000 hospitalizations
and over 3,000 deaths in this country every year. Every year one in
every six Americans become sick from the food that they eat. Our
youngest and oldest Americans are the most vulnerable to these
illnesses, and right now roughly 80 percent of the seafood and 60
percent of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States have
been produced outside our borders.
Amid all this imported food, our ability to ensure that food products
are safe and not contaminated is dwindling. The FDA inspects less than
2 percent of the imported food in its jurisdiction. Yet, 70 percent of
the apple juice we drink was produced in China,
[[Page H8236]]
roughly 90 percent of the shrimp that we eat was produced outside of
the United States. Across this 2 percent, the FDA finds a frighteningly
large number of shipments with dangerous food safety violations,
including the presence of pathogens and chemical contamination.
Families should be able to know where their food is coming from. Just
this morning, a Japanese food producer announced the recall of 400,000
cans of infant formula after traces of radioactive cesium were found in
the company's milk powder. And after the Fukushima disaster earlier
this year, Americans were concerned about the safety of seafood
imports.
I do not want to single out any one country. Sadly, food-borne
disease outbreaks are frighteningly normal, both here and abroad. We
recently experienced a listeria outbreak in cantaloupes which sickened
at least 139 people and killed 29 more. Germany saw an E. coli crisis
this summer that killed dozens and sickened thousands. In 2010, we saw
a salmonella outbreak in crushed pepper that sickened 272 people, and
another salmonella outbreak that resulted in the recall of over half a
billion eggs and almost 2,000 Americans becoming ill.
Country of origin labeling does not lead to American job losses or
bankrupt the food industry; it simply lets consumers know where their
food comes from.
That is particularly important in this economy, when not only food
inspectors, but food producers are stretched thin. Consumers should be
able to know when they are buying foods that were grown, raised, or
produced right here in America.
{time} 1700
They have the right to know where their food was produced and to make
their own choices about the food that they buy.
In the past, there has been a bipartisan consensus that country-of-
origin labeling is a good idea, that it keeps families safe, and that
it supports American farmers. In fact, the chairman, my counterpart on
the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman
Rehberg of Montana, has been a leader in ensuring strong country-of-
origin labeling. We should continue that bipartisan commitment today.
Exempt country-of-origin labeling from the REINS Act.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for public health, consumers' right
to know, and American businesses. Support this final amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a distraction. It
misses the point of this legislation entirely. We are here today to
restore accountability for the regulations with the biggest impact on
our economy.
Good, bad or ugly--and our regulatory code includes all three--
Congress should be accountable for regulations that cost the American
people $100 million or more annually.
The REINS Act simply says that Congress must vote on these
regulations, these major rules, before they can be enforced on the
American people. Essentially, this motion to recommit repeats part of
an exclusion already attempted in the McCarthy amendment that the House
just voted down. It's purely a political motion.
The REINS Act has been the subject of two hearings and a markup in
the Judiciary Committee and was subject to an additional markup in the
Rules Committee. Today, we have had a robust debate on the bill and
seven amendments, five of which were offered by colleagues in the
minority.
Congress has a bipartisan bad habit writing vague legislation that
sounds nice, but leaves the dirty work to unelected bureaucrats in
administrative agencies. This practice has allowed the Congress to
claim credit for popular aspects of laws, and blame regulatory agencies
for increased costs or the otherwise negative effects of the
regulations.
Agencies are also starting to bypass Congress by writing regulations
that stretch the bounds of their delegated authorities. The
administration has declared an intent to pursue their agenda by pushing
items they could not get through Congress through regulatory actions
instead. Indeed, laws they could not pass in Democratic supermajorities
in the last Congress are now being attempted, against the will of the
Congress, to be implemented by regulation.
What we have proposed in the REINS Act is very simple: Congress
should at the very least be accountable for regulations with $100
million of annual economic impact or more. These rules are classified
by the administration as major rules.
The REINS Act is not anti-regulation, and it is not pro-regulation.
What we're saying is let's have a transparent and accountable process
for implementing new regulations.
According to a recent Gallup Poll, small business owners cited
complying with government regulation as the biggest problem facing them
today. Public Notice did a poll recently that found that a majority of
Americans believe Congress should approve regulations before they can
be enforced.
Our economy is struggling to recover, and more than 13 million
Americans are still out of work. Congress needs to do a much better job
of creating a pro-growth environment that increases our competitiveness
and rewards entrepreneurship and ingenuity.
Everyone agrees that regulations can have a significant and
detrimental impact on jobs and our economy. Even President Obama
described regulations that stifle innovation and have a chilling effect
on growth and jobs in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this
year.
The REINS Act lays down a marker to say that Congress should be
directly accountable for the most expensive regulations that could
stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.
In the words of the great Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicholas
Longworth, I ask all of my colleagues to strike a blow for liberty, to
vote for accountability. I oppose the motion to recommit. Vote against
the motion to recommit. Support the REINS Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 900]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
[[Page H8237]]
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Bachmann
Bass (CA)
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Conyers
Diaz-Balart
Fudge
Giffords
Hinchey
Lee (CA)
Myrick
Nadler
Payne
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1723
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 184, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 901]
AYES--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--184
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Bachmann
Castor (FL)
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Hinchey
Myrick
Nadler
Young (FL)
{time} 1730
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H8238]]
____________________