Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5309-H5332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2013

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to set the frame
for where we are.
What we're asking is for all major rules and regulations to have to
be approved by both the House and the Senate and signed by the
President before they would ever go into effect. That message is one of
the few things we can agree on--the Senate agreed on the time we can
adjourn. That's about what we agree on. Seventeen bills have made it
through here in 7 months, and we're talking about 50 to 100 major
rules. Not gonna happen.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Tennessee, and I thank him for
his able leadership on this bill.
Listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle, I urge them
all to re-read Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' because that's where
you would take us. You would take us to a world in which there was no
Federal oversight of the food supply in America, there was no oversight
of child labor in America, there was no oversight of workplace safety
in America. And tragedies ensued.
America's water, America's air is cleaner, more breathable, and
healthier today precisely because of regulation. The narrative that all
regulation is burdensome--it only entails a cost, it never entails a
benefit--is absolutely false and needs to be rejected by this body.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it is once again shaping up to be a lost summer
for Congress as a number of issues ripe for debate--not this one--will
be left to wither on the vine as Members leave town for the next 5
weeks. That's frustrating, after this year began with so much promise.
I was pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition that voted for the
New Year's Day deal to avert the fiscal cliff. A few weeks later, that
same bipartisan coalition banded together to provide emergency aid to
communities ravaged by Superstorm Sandy. Thankfully, our success didn't
stop even there. We came together again on a bipartisan basis to
reaffirm the strong support for the Violence Against Women Act after it
had languished in this body because leadership refused to compromise.
At that point, people were actually beginning to wonder if the 113th
Congress had finally gotten the message--that the American people want
us to work together to get things done, not to just make cheap
political points. But sadly, that progress was not sustained.
The first fissure appeared after the Senate's adoption of its first
budget in nearly 4 years. I guess my friends on the other side of the
aisle, the House Republicans, who had repeatedly beat up on the other
Chamber for not doing its job with respect to the budget, are still
dumbfounded that they in fact did pass one because it's been 4 months
and they still have yet to appoint Members to the conference committee
they claim they wanted.
Then the Senate managed to pass bipartisan comprehensive immigration
reform. Our Republican colleagues may talk a good game on immigration,
but that's all they've done so far here in the House. Not one of the
bills in their piecemeal approach has come to this floor for
consideration.
And just recently, House leaders allowed extreme partisanship to not
only derail what was originally a bipartisan farm bill, but to also
cast aside a critical safety net that was founded on a bipartisan basis
in both the Senate and the House decades ago to protect families who
need help putting food on the table.
The list of unfinished business continues to grow as we enter the
final days of summer, but where is the urgency to resolve them? I was
puzzled to see House Republicans bring up a so-called ``jobs'' bill
that once again provided less infrastructure funding than we did the
previous year in what was called the T-HUD appropriation bill. Of
course it wasn't a surprise they had to pull it from the floor in the
face of bipartisan opposition. Their parting shot of this week will be
the 40th attempt to repeal part or all of ObamaCare. That's 40.
When we return from this ill-timed recess, Congress will have just 9
legislative days to reach a deal on keeping the government open for
business beyond the end of the fiscal year, and by that time we're
going to be bumping up against the debt ceiling. We actually managed a
bipartisan accord to suspend that debt ceiling earlier this year, but
we haven't been able to rekindle that spirit of cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, the American people aren't taking 5 weeks off like we
are, and neither should this Congress. We can't afford another lost
summer.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
Mr. BACHUS. The gentleman from Fairfax, Virginia, has just told us
that we have avoided the fiscal cliff. I wonder if our children and
grandchildren can take any comfort in that. I had no idea that the
deficit and the debt had gone away. I had been told they were
increasing by billions of dollars every day.
We have another difference of opinion across the aisle. Our
colleagues are saying we need more Federal regulations--those that are
covered by this bill that cost $100 million or more. We on this side of
the aisle think that we could do well with a few less more regulations.
Yes, every President has added regulations, every administration--and
we're supposed to say that that is a good thing?
Regulations today cost $11,000 per American worker. Now, that's not
taxes; that's not your Social Security; that's not their expense. That
is just the Federal regulations. Fourteen percent of our national
income, according to Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, our former Congressional
Budget Office director, 14 percent of our national income is being
absorbed by Federal regulations.

Now, the gentleman from Tennessee says there were all these
regulations before, and the Obama administration, they passed very few
regulations. Well, not according to Dr. Holtz-Eakin. He

[[Page H5310]]

actually says that in the last 4 years, the Obama administration has
added over a half-trillion dollars worth of new regulations. Boy, so it
may be Groundhog Day, but we're another half-trillion dollars deeper in
Federal regulations.
But let's talk about one family. Let's talk about one family and what
regulations mean to them. One regulation caused American families to
pay $20 more for a bronchial dilator. That was despite the fact that in
1987, in Montreal, there was an accord. And the reason is, the FDA said
we're not going to allow an ozone-depleting substance to come out of
these bronchial dilators, so they banned it. And immediately, in 2008,
the cost of these bronchial dilators went from $6 and $8 up to as much
as $30. Well, you know what the effect of that was? Let me tell you
what The New York Times said. The New York Times described this as a
rough transition to new asthma inhalers because several million
Americans suddenly were paying $20 more and some couldn't afford it.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Some couldn't afford it, I'll say to the gentleman from
Virginia, the gentleman from Georgia, and the gentleman from Tennessee.
Several million Americans were suddenly being forced--some elderly,
some children--to pay $20 more for what had been a $7 or $10 item. And
you know what happened? A lot of them couldn't afford it, and there
were more asthma attacks and there was more bronchitis, and emphysema
increased. That was despite the fact that in Montreal, in 1987, there
was an accord that said, number one, that substance in a medical
inhaler was essential and was excepted from the accord because the
ozone was improving, number one. But number two, even if you banned all
non-industrial discharges of ozone-depleting substances--all of them--
it wouldn't do any good; it would have an insignificant effect. And of
the non-industrial discharges, the amount from medical inhalers was
infinitesimal. We denied millions of Americans an essential health
item.
Mr. COHEN. Before I yield to Mr. Johnson, I would say that I could
respond to some of the statements that the gentleman from Alabama made,
but I won't do it because I have the highest respect for him. He's one
of the finest Members of this House.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
367, the REINS Act.
I have profound concerns with the REINS Act. This bill would
undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public interest. It is
a continuation of the majority's obstructionist approach that led to
sequestration.
This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us back to the days
before the Wall Street collapse, a financial catastrophe that could
have been avoided by responsible policies. This bill comes from the
same brain trust that pulled the bill for transportation funding
yesterday. Apparently, $4.4 billion in budget cuts is not good enough
for these Republicans.
And now we consider the REINS Act, a bill that would require Congress
to have the final say on regulations. Stop and think about that. The
same House Republicans that could not vote to fund transportation now
want to have the final say on all major rules. Never mind that Congress
already has that power under the Congressional Review Act. Never mind
that House Republican leadership tried this same maneuver in 2011.

{time} 1830

If Republican leadership truly believed in growing the economy and
creating jobs, we would have come together with a grand bargain long
ago. We could even vote on job-creating legislation to strengthen the
middle class. But instead, this Republican Congress insists on voting
on a messaging bill that will go absolutely nowhere. Few Americans are
surprised by yet another Republican leadership failure that has become
par for the course.
Mr. Chairman, millions of Americans are still out of work. As we go
back to our districts over the recess, I hope my Republican colleagues
can look into the eyes of the poor and the unemployed in their
communities and say: ``Don't worry, I voted for a messaging bill to
deregulate America.''
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield
2 minutes on this job-creating legislation to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Smith), a great new member of the House Judiciary
Committee,
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 367, the REINS Act of 2013.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and a cosponsor,
I am pleased to see a good reform bill like REINS come to the floor.
Regulations impose hundreds of billions of dollars--in fact, trillions
of dollars--on family farmers and small businesses, which significantly
affect our economy and job creation in southeast Missouri.
Businesses and individuals face an uncertain regulatory future, and
this gives them pause as they seek to start or grow their businesses to
encourage economic growth and create jobs. The REINS bill adds just a
little more certainty to the process. It allows these individuals to
hear about regulations and give input to Congress before they vote up
or down on an agency rule.
As I travel across Missouri, I always run into business owners,
family farmers, and individuals who have felt the sting of government
and their overreach, with the over 170,000 pages of rules and
regulations affecting their lives. The ``pie in the sky'' regulations
here in D.C. have real effects back home. The voice of the American
people through their elected representatives should be the determining
factor in government regulation, not that of a beltway bureaucrat.
I urge adoption of the REINS Act.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 53 seconds to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this misguided
piece of legislation, which would erect new obstacles and red tape to
protecting American lives.
At the outset, let me just reiterate what Mr. Cohen said earlier in
his opening remarks, which is that Congress already has the power to
disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act, through the
appropriations process, and through other authorizing legislation.
H.R. 367, let's face it, is essentially an attempt to impose a
procedural chokehold on protecting American citizens. I want to talk
about one of those proposed rules, which is now pending at OSHA, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is a rule to
prevent the continuing litany of workplace fire and explosions from
combustible dust.
Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't see fit to allow an
amendment offered by Representative George Miller to exclude that rule
from the underlying bill. It has been abundantly clear for a decade
that Federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust
explosions and fires.
In 2003, the Chemical Safety Board found that protections to stop
these explosions were grossly inadequate. The Board identified hundreds
of other combustible dust fires and explosions, causing at least 119
fatalities and 715 injuries over the last 15 years.
The investigators themselves are not alone in demanding action. Tammy
Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress recently about how her
brother Shawn was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel
plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us how he was left
lying on a smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust
burned through his flesh and muscle tissue. And each breath caused his
internal organs to be burned even more.
Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been
the last. It has been more than 5 years since the Imperial Sugar
explosion in Georgia, an explosion that killed 14 workers. It caused
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because an unchecked
accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions,
leveling the plant.
These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 49 major
combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 18 and injured
131 workers since Imperial Sugar.

[[Page H5311]]

More recently, five workers were killed in three separate events at a
factory north of Nashville because an iron powder processing plant
failed to abate repeated dust hazards. Each of the five left behind a
wife and child; one had four children under 11, another became a
grandfather the day before he was killed.
Widows have called on their government to protect them, and that's
where OSHA comes in. In 2009, OSHA finally started work on a rule to
reduce the risk of these explosions. There will be small business
panels, risk assessments, public hearings, and plenty of opportunities
for comments.
Despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special
interests a new way to block needed protections, and they are already
lining up to kill a rule they dislike.
The sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an
effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working
families and their widows.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.
If I have another few seconds, I just want to say we are now hours
away from a 5-week recess. 640,000 DOD civilian employees are looking
at Congress, asking why they should be furloughed for the next 8 weeks,
losing 20 percent of their pay, some of whom are doing critical work
for our national security, and yet not once in the over 200 days since
this Congress was sworn in, has the governing majority brought a bill
to this floor to turn off sequester and make sure that these people who
are doing critical work for our national security can do their job.
That's what we should be focused on. We should cancel the recess, turn
off sequester, and end the endless debate about bills that are headed
nowhere.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the REINS Act.
The REINS Act is needed, frankly, because for decades now Congress
has abdicated its responsibility for lawmaking to unelected Federal
elites in the executive branch. They often create overbearing
regulations that stifle innovation, reduce productivity, prevent
businesses from growing and adding jobs, and increase prices on
everything from gasoline to groceries. Don't get me wrong; some
regulations are good and necessary, but they come with substantial
cost, and there is not enough accountability for them.
I would look forward to voting for good regulations, and I would
think my colleagues across the aisle would also look forward to voting
for good regulations and taking credit for them. At this moment,
however, the Obama administration has regulations in the pipeline that
could cost the American people more than $50 billion. The Competitive
Enterprise Institute estimates the regulatory burden to be almost
$15,000 a year per family. Another study estimates that just six EPA
regulations will cause the loss of almost 10 million jobs.
These rules are written by unelected elites with very little
accountability to individual citizens across my district in western
Pennsylvania, from Ellwood City to Lower Burrell to Somerset.
The REINS Act requires your elected representatives to be more
accountable for regulations. Very simply, if the regulations will cost
Americans more than $100 million, then Congress has to vote on it. Good
regulations will be approved, and others will not. But your
representative will have to declare a position, and you can hold them
accountable for their votes.
Mr. Chairman, the REINS Act makes sense to me, it makes sense to my
constituents in western Pennsylvania, and I encourage my colleagues to
support the bill.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on
each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from Tennessee has 10\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the REINS Act, and I rise in
support of the man who introduced it, my friend and colleague from
Indiana, Mr. Young.
I want to start out by addressing something the gentleman from
Tennessee debated and talked about just a little bit earlier. He said
that ``we don't get anything done here.'' I would like to take some
opposition to that.
Just this week, we solved in a permanent fashion, Mr. Chairman, the
student loan situation. We didn't do it with Democratic-inspired price
fixing; we tied it to the market. Now, it's true it was very much a
Republican bill when it left this House, then it was wisely adopted by
the Senate in agreement last week, and it came back over here for a
final vote 99 percent the same as it left. That's getting something
done. That is real.
But let's take the gentleman's point a little bit further. Let's say
sometimes we don't get something done; let's say sometimes we don't
agree. The gentleman's solution is to let the unelected, unaccountable,
nameless, faceless bureaucrats handle it, who aren't directly elected
by anybody.
That is an abdication of the constitutional duty of this House, of
this branch of government. It is our duty to make the laws; it is our
duty to make the rules. And not only is it our duty to debate and pass
legislation--hopefully not every time with our names on it--but it's
also our constitutional duty to oversight the executive branch. That's
exactly what the REINS Act acts to do.
How dare we decide we don't want to address, we don't want to tackle
the big issues, Mr. Chairman, because they're too controversial; let
the bureaucrats do it. That's not the way to run a government, that's
not a way to run this branch of government, and that's not the way to
run this House.
It's time this body starts doing its second and equally important
constitutional duty, and that is oversight of the executive branch. The
REINS Act, again, helps us do that in large measure. For that reason, I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. COHEN. I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), home of Archie Bell and the Drells.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his
distinguished leadership and friendship, and the chairman of the full
committee, because I believe that it is fair to have a difference of
opinion. It is also fair to say that there are times when we have a
great opportunity to work together.
I believe the gentleman mentioned my tenure on the Judiciary
Committee, so let me document for my colleagues: the REINS Act goes
around and around and around and around. It is constantly repeated and
reintroduced, and it constantly fails.
For the new Members, my friends on the other side of the aisle who
are standing up and talking about what a great impact this would have,
they are using old data and misinterpretation, for there is no real
documentation that the REINS Act is going to stop $1.5 trillion in
excess cost. In fact, the authors of the study that my friends are
using--the study was assessed by the Congressional Research Service.
I know when I speak to the American people and my colleagues they
want to debunk all of this procedure and say ``enough is enough.'' But
the CRS showed that the study was flawed, but more importantly, the
author said: ``We never intended for this to determine benefits to
regulation. Our studies have nothing to do with it.''
We cannot document the $1.5 trillion or the billions of dollars that
our friends say that they're going to lose. They know full well that
there is a procedure of disapproval that Congress can respond to the
needs and the questions of the American public.

{time} 1845

What they do not tell you is that this procedure--oh, I hate to talk
about it. Please let me apologize. If you hear it, your eyes will roll
back in your head, for what has to happen now is that the agency is
doing its work. The DOD, Health and Human Services, the Department of
Education are doing their work under existing law. They are trying to
work on clean air and clean

[[Page H5312]]

water, safe toys, safe cars, and safe workplaces.
By the way, I offered an amendment to exempt children's regulations
for babies who are 2 and under, and I was denied by the majority, by
the Republican Rules Committee, so that babies who need safe cribs and
toys now have to have this happen. Unless both Houses of Congress pass
a joint resolution--let me tell you how long that might take--2 years,
3 years, five sessions, who knows--and then such rule within a fixed
70-legislative-day period, it kicks over into the next Congress. In the
meantime, babies' heads are driven through cribs.
Those of us who are mothers know that era. It hasn't stopped. Each
time, you have to look at the technology of cribs--or of toys that they
choke on--and be able to discern how newborns are impacted. The
Consumer Product Safety Commission can't effectively put a regulation
in. Mothers understand that. Can you imagine a resolution of two Houses
of Congress? Right now, we can't even get a budget resolution going
forward.
I will tell you what the American people want us to do. It's not the
REINS Act, which goes around and around. I think it was in the 112th
Congress and in the 111th Congress. We are now in the 113th, and we
will do it in the 114th. It does not save money. The American people
want a solution-based budgeting process. They want us to go back to the
budget reconciliation. They want us to stop laying off, as my good
friend from Connecticut said, hardworking Defense workers, hardworking
Homeland Security workers, hardworking Department of Education workers,
who are trying to help this country be better. They want us to reduce
the deficit. I will raise my hand for that. That is a good thing. They
want us to create jobs, and they want us to be fair to the middle
class.
I come from Texas. One of the worst disasters ever to occur was in
West, Texas--the tragedy and the devastation of the loss of our fellow
Americans in an explosion that should not have happened. What was the
cry? What was the Federal Government doing? What was the regulatory
scheme in order to prevent whatever ignited that terrible tragedy to
see the loss of first responders?
The Federal Government is an umbrella on a rainy day. Fix the
problems of regulation one by one. If there is one that is undermining
small businesses, we are happy to do the disapproval process, and you
can be assured that the voices of the American people will cry out. I
can tell you that there is no proof--no legitimacy, no documentation--
but anecdotal stories of, I hate the Federal Government. I don't hate
the Federal Government. I pledge allegiance to this great flag and to
this great Nation. I love my country. Therefore, I understand that it
is the umbrella on a rainy day.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COHEN. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady in
order to explain the fallacies of this bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his
kindness.
Mr. Chairman, the reason we had to reassess the Army Corps of
Engineers and have a regulatory scheme is that we lost almost 1,000-
plus individuals in Hurricane Katrina. It wasn't the hurricane that had
come through; it was the dam that broke. I know it well because I
walked those streets of the Ninth Ward, and I saw the babies' shoes and
the clothing hanging on closets and the whole area that was literally
destroyed and that killed 1,000 people.
It's the regulatory structure of what kind of oversight was given,
what regulatory structure the Army Corps was working under, what
oversight they gave, what the regulation period was in which they had
to review these kinds of structures around America. Then people wanted
us to get in and get something accomplished. So I am just perplexed
that there is no evidence whatsoever that this will create jobs, and it
does not answer, by any means, how this government can work better.
I started to say to the gentleman from Tennessee that we all love
this country--we pledge allegiance to the flag in our schools and in
this body--and I wish my friends on the other side of the aisle would
find some other way that we could work together. They talk about Obama
administration regulations. My friends, they have been submitting this
over and over again. These regulations have been carried forward from
the Bush administration. This is not from the Obama administration.
Let me close by saying that I want clean air, that I want clean
water, that I want our babies to be safe in their cribs and playpens. I
am appalled that they put this legislation on the floor as something
new when this is as old as Methuselah and, I might say, has limited
value. As we would say in Texas, it's something that would be very
doubtful. I'll leave it at that because we usually talk Texan in Texas,
and I'm not there now.
What I will tell you is that we have ways of explaining how things
are not relevant. This is not relevant, and it does not equate to a
State legislature at all. This is for the United States of America. You
cannot put the REINS Act in place and talk about jobs. I simply ask
that we defeat this bill and pass these amendments that have been
offered by Democrats, who want to make sure that we address the
question of the American people.
I leave this podium by saying to the gentleman from Tennessee: Is it
ludicrous to place as a responsibility of the Congress a 70-day window
for two Houses to pass a resolution when we did not and were not able
to pass a student loan effort for months and months, which, by the way,
was made better by Senate Democrats? Is it reasonable?

Mr. COHEN. It is not reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, since 1996, the disapproval process described by the
gentlewoman from Texas has succeeded just one time. During that time,
tens of thousands of regulations have been passed; and if people think
that all but one of them were just fine, I would suggest it's just the
opposite. It's the process right now--the inability of the Congress to
rein in regulations that are out of control--which is lacking, and
that's why we need the REINS Act, so that regulations that cost more
than $100 million come back to the Congress for approval.
It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Farenthold), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and
the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial
and Antitrust Law.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I want to address, too, what my
colleague from Houston, Texas, just said.
I love clean air, clean water, safe working places as much as she
does; but we've got a government now that, instead of working with the
people and with industry, is working against them. The trust in our
government is at an all-time low. Scandal after scandal is plaguing the
government. We have got to get people who are accountable in charge of
those regulations, not unelected bureaucrats who are writing
regulations that only in the history of the Review Act have been
overturned one time. Ergonomic furniture was the only time that was
able to work.
What I want to talk about is the Constitution.
The Constitution granted this body--the House of Representatives--and
our colleagues across the Capitol, the Senate, the legislative power in
this country to write laws and make rules that the American people must
abide by. Now, for a variety of reasons, past Congresses have delegated
this part. I mean, it makes sense. I don't know how many parts per
billion of whatever substance in water is safe and what isn't. I don't
know how many feet high a barrier needs to be to keep our workers safe.
We've given this authority to our regulatory agencies. Yet, under this
President in particular--and even under past Presidents--these agencies
have seized that power and have written more and more burdensome
regulations that go beyond the intent of this body.
Before we burden the American people with expensive, burdensome and
intrusive regulations, the American people have a right to have their
elected officials vote on it. This is how we are starting to reclaim
some of the power that past Congresses have given away and are bringing
it back to where our Founding Fathers rightfully intended--

[[Page H5313]]

into the Halls of Congress. This is a rational way to do it.
Washington works best under pressure. We give ourselves a deadline.
If there is a bad rule that comes up under the REINS Act, we will get
to it. We will approve it if it's good, and we will disapprove it if
it's bad. That's our job. That's what we were sent here to do and, with
our salaries, what we are paid to do.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. It is my pleasure to yield an additional minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to wrap up by saying that this really is a
problem. Elected officials are not making the rules. There is no
accountability, and it's going to be hard for us to do it. This is the
first step in bringing the power back to the people and to their
elected Representatives. The REINS Act is a commonsense way to hold
government accountable and to start to rebuild that trust that the
American people have lost in Washington, D.C. That is what is good for
America, and I urge my colleagues to support the REINS Act.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve what few precious minutes
and seconds I may have left, and I would like to be informed of how
many precious minutes and seconds I have.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for
bringing this bill forward.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the REINS Act. If you look
at why we are bringing this bill forward, it is because of the
onslaught of radical regulations that have been coming from this Obama
administration for the last 4\1/2\ years.
Every time I go back home and talk to small business owners in my
district, the biggest impediment that they tell me they have to
creating more jobs--the biggest impediment--is the rules and
regulations coming down from the Federal Government. If you look at
what the REINS Act does, it doesn't stop those rules and regulations.
It just says, if these rules and regulations are so important and have
a $100 million impact on our economy, shouldn't they come before
Congress and have to state their cases? I mean, what are you so afraid
of in coming before the public body and having transparency?
President Obama said he was going to be the most transparent
President ever. Yet he has got these bureaucrats who want to go behind
closed doors and come up with rules and regulations. We have had
hearings on some of this stuff, by the way, and they talk about things
that are going to save kids' lives and things that are going to improve
the quality of our air. We have had hearing after hearing in which the
rules that they come up with have absolutely nothing to do with
improving the quality of people's health.
What it has to do with is ramming through a radical agenda that they
can't pass through Congress, and if Congress can't pass it--the
publicly elected body of the United States Government--then you
shouldn't go through the back door and have some unelected bureaucrat
try to ram that through on this country and cause a devastating impact
on jobs.

There have been over 130 different major rules under the Obama
administration having a $70 billion impact on families in this country.
With that $70 billion of impact that's going to cost families more
money for food, for energy--for everything they do--shouldn't they have
to come before the public bodies here in Congress and state the case?
If it's such a good rule, what are they afraid of? Why don't they want
that transparency?
It's because they don't want the transparency. They want to ram
through the radical agenda, and the REINS Act just puts a stop to the
unelected bureaucrats from doing it.
Mr. COHEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I believe all of the speakers on our
side have spoken. I reserve the right to close, and at this time, I
await the gentleman's actions. Then I will be happy to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a good discussion on this bill. Indeed, it
is ``Groundhog Day'' as we have had it so many times. We've just gone
around and around.
It is amazing that this body, which I am so proud to serve in, has
popularity ratings amongst the American public of less than 10 percent
because of the ineffectiveness of the House to work with the Senate and
get anything done. Yet here we are, trying to give this body more power
over the safety and health--fiscal and physical--of the American
public.
One of the gentlemen spoke and said, I don't know how tall something
has to be--a dam. I don't know.
Of course he doesn't know. You leave it to the experts. We pass laws.
We instruct the agencies to come up with reasonable rules and
regulations because they know how to build dams and know how to have
airplanes that you can get off of in case of a crash and save people's
lives and how to have fire-retardant seats and deal with other safety
issues. There are abundant safety issues for the American public.
This is a bad idea. It is an idea that will not create jobs. It will
hurt the American public. It will hurt safety and possibly our
financial safety as well because it could impede Dodd-Frank from going
in to protect the American public from future financial doom like we
almost saw in 2008 with derivatives here in this Congress.
So I would ask that we vote ``no,'' that we protect the American
public, and that we respect the system that we have had for so many
years for safety and health.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1900

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
A year and a half ago, the President of the United States came to
give his State of the Union address here in the House Chamber and stood
at the podium just below where you're standing right now. He had a long
list of legislative items he wanted the Congress to pass. At the
conclusion of it he said, If you don't do it, I will. I'm paraphrasing,
of course. The question that many of us had was: By what authority in
the United States Constitution does the President of the United States
have the ability to do something that he has come to the Congress to
ask to be passed legislatively and to tell us, if we don't do it, he's
going to do it himself in the executive branch?
Well, the way he does it, when he's not stopped by lawsuits and other
means, is he simply has regulations passed to accomplish those
objectives. You know what? Thousands of regulations are passed every
Congress compared to a few hundred laws that are passed. All we're
asking here today is that for those regulations that cost the American
people $100 million or more, that they have to come back here and be
approved by the Congress rather than have executive fiat control that.
This is the representative democracy here in the House of
Representatives and in the United States Senate. This is the people's
House. We have the authority to pass laws, and we definitely are
concerned about the welfare and well-being of our American people. But
when we add trillions of dollars in costs to the expenses of American
families, $11,000 per family, that's a stunning thing to think about
what money could have been spent on other things. Yes, of course, some
of those regulations are necessary, but many of them are not. Many of
them needlessly add cost and create an ever-growing bureaucracy in the
executive branch. We need to have ways to rein that in.
The most effective way to do that is to start with the largest
regulation. Many people would say, well, we should do it for all
regulations. That ought to be our objective, to make it very clear that
we do not want to see regulations passed that are ineffective, that are
needless, that add costs. Starting with those that cost more than $100
million, it is absolutely appropriate for the elected representatives
of the people to have the final say on whether those

[[Page H5314]]

regulations are, indeed, what the Congress intended when they passed
the underlying laws upon which those regulations are based. That's all
we ask in this legislation. It is reasonable. The American people want
it. This Congress should pass it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I strongly support of the REINS Act.
The American people today face an onslaught of unnecessary Federal
regulations. From the President's health care law to the never-ending
list of EPA rules, government regulation has become a barrier to
economic growth and job creation.
Congress hears from employers daily about the threat of Federal
regulations to their businesses. These employers are rightly concerned
about the cost of compliance that regulations impose on their
businesses. Overly burdensome regulation diverts limited money and
resources away from business investment and expansion to meet the
government's demands. This harms the ability of business owners to
create more jobs and boost local economies. That should motivate us to
take action today.
Rather than halt its efforts to expand government, the administration
seeks to use the regulatory agencies to accomplish what it cannot get
approved by Congress. The REINS Act ensures that Congress has the final
say over whether Washington will impose major new regulations on the
American economy. Specifically, the bill establishes a procedure for
Congress to approve all new major regulations proposed by the
administration.
The President himself has expressed the risks that excessive
regulations pose to our economy. He has called for reviews of existing
regulations to provide relief. He has also made a commitment to make
the regulatory process more transparent. However, the President has
failed to deliver on these promises. Instead, the Obama administration
has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the
previous administration over the same time period.
It is time for Congress to reverse this harmful trend in
overregulation. The REINS Act holds the administration accountable for
its unjustified regulatory assault on job creators. It guarantees that
Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, will be the final arbiter of all
new major regulatory costs.
The American people want job creation and economic growth, not more
regulation. The REINS Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations
that burden the economy.
I thank Mr. Young of Indiana for introducing this important
legislation and I thank Chairman Goodlatte for taking up the REINS Act.
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 are difficult to
navigate. However, in my experience, regulations tend to be less
stringent than necessary rather than overly strict. There are ways to
make regulation more efficient and easier to navigate, but we must do
so in a way that protects public health, maintains our environmental
protections, and ensures fair market interactions.
For the second time in less than two years, today Congress is
considering H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny Act. I oppose this legislation, as I did in 2011, and urge my
colleagues to vote against it. This bill is an 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. This is how legislation is implemented. This bill
would require both the House and the Senate to vote on every major
regulation before that regulation can be enforced, providing only
seventy days to do so. This allows Congress to effectively veto any
legislation we have already passed, simply by taking no action and
keeping agencies from moving forward with implementation. 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.
We do not need to extend Congress's dysfunction to the rest of the
federal government. I strongly oppose H.R. 367 and urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today as a proud original
cosponsor of H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny--or REINS--Act.
Far too much authority has been delegated to federal agencies,
leading to a lack of accountability and massive Executive overreach
through regulation. According to current procedure, major rules
promulgated by agencies take effect unless Congress passes and the
President signs a joint resolution disapproving them under the
Congressional Review Act. The Obama Administration has abused this
process time and time again to bypass the legislative branch to
regulate what it cannot legislate, with $50 billion in new rules
proposed this year alone and the overall cost of the current regulatory
burden coming in at $1.8 trillion.
At a time when nearly 12 million Americans are searching for work,
the Obama Administration continues to burden the economy with
cumbersome, bureaucratic regulations that harm small businesses and
hamper economic growth. To make matters worse, this Administration has
made a habit out of ignoring the legal obligation to transparency in
the regulatory process. The constant flow of regulations has led to
uncertainty and a lack of oversight, and Americans deserve a government
that is truly accountable to the people.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 367 would restore Congressional accountability by
requiring Congress and the President to approve major rules--those with
an impact on the economy of more than $100 million--before they can be
enforced, thereby allowing a means to stem the flow of unnecessary,
complex, and ineffective regulations. Congress has the right and
responsibility to exercise rigorous oversight over the rulemaking
process to ensure that we reduce needless and excessive regulatory
burdens, protect current jobs, and promote future growth. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 367.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the
``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Need of Scrutiny Act.''
Without question, this bill will have dangerous consequences for all
Americans by creating an unworkable approval process that will make it
nearly impossible for many new regulations to go into effect.
It does this by imposing impossibly unrealistic deadlines by which
Congress must consider and pass exceedingly complex and technical
regulations in order for such regulations to take effect.
Under H.R. 367, Congress would have only 70 legislative days within
which to act after it receives a major rule.
Now, let us put this in some perspective. Over the past few years,
the average number of major rules promulgated each year is about 85.
In 2010, for instance, 94 major rules were issued. But keep in mind
the following fact: there were just 116 legislative days in the House
during 2010.
Worse yet, the bill restricts the days on which these major rules may
be considered in the House, which--for last year--would have been just
10 days.
Assuming there is just an average number of major rules, the House
would have to consider an average of 8 separate major rules on each of
those days.
And, if the REINS Act were to become law today, there would be only 5
days left in 2013 on which the House could consider the merits of major
rules.
Under H.R. 367, there is just no way Congress could possibly have the
time to consider all the major rules issued during the year.
And, if Congress fails to act within this mandatory time frame, the
regulation cannot be considered until the next Congress.
Even Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a prior iteration of the
REINS Act back in 1983. He said that such legislation would ``hobbl[e]
agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative Congressional assent to all
major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on the
regulatory agencies.''
The bottom line is that the bill would at least significantly delay
rulemaking and at worst bring it to a halt.
Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong
regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of
their lives.
According to the Government Accountability Office, if the REINS Act
were in effect now it would delay or possibly derail at least 32 major
proposed regulations issued this year and 68 such rules issued last
year.
Among other things, these proposed regulations pertain to:
reimbursement rates for end-stage renal disease Medicare providers;
payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children
Program;
various Federal student loan programs;
the Justice Department's National Standards to prevent, detect, and
respond to prison rape;
meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010;
the Transportation Department's Certified Medical Examiners National
Registry;
Labor Department Standards for H-2B Aliens in the United States;
the subsistence allowance for veterans under the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Program; and the Patent and Trademark
Office's proposal setting and adjusting patent fees.

And, this is just a small sample of the many kinds of protections
that the REINS Act would jeopardize. I could go on and on.

[[Page H5315]]

This explains why nearly 70 consumer groups, environmental
organizations, labor unions, and other entities, strenuously oppose
this bill.
Likewise, the Administration issued a strongly worded veto threat
against this bill. It warns that H.R. 367 ``would delay and, in many
cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of
duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed
protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion.''
Finally, H.R. 367 will give anti-regulatory interests yet another
opportunity to derail rulemaking.
Major rules are the product of an intensive, multi-year process,
based on extensive input received from the public and affected entities
through a notice and comment period.
Agencies often spend many months, if not years, to perfect theses
rules based on feedback from these sources and their own expertise.
Under the bill's short-circuited process, however, Congress will not
realistically be able to second-guess the merits of these rules.
Instead, we in Congress will be bombarded with visits, phone calls,
and talking points from industry lobbyists and well-funded special
interests that can use every resource available to persuade us of the
validity of their views.
Superficially, it may seem like a good idea to make Congress the
final arbiter of all significant regulatory decisions. After all,
Members of Congress are elected and regulators are not.
But realistically, we simply lack the expertise and resources to make
the requisite prudential decisions about the bona fides of these rules,
particularly given the limited time frame we have to act under the
bill.
An example of how this legislation would work:
I recently introduced H.R. 2480, the Nurse and Health Care Worker
Protection Act of 2013, which would require the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration to promulgate a regulation that protects our
caretakers from debilitating injuries. Nursing professionals and health
care aids have among the highest rates of back, neck, and shoulder
injuries of any profession, due to the trauma of lifting, supporting,
and repositioning patients. Through a straightforward regulation that
promotes safe patient handling practices, including the use of
mechanical devices, this regulation could save, millions of dollars
each year, and countless years of experience.
Now even if the House and Senate pass H.R. 2480 and the experts with
OSHA develop the proper standards to prevent these debilitating
injuries, under the REINS Act, any resulting regulations would have to
be assessed by Congress and voted on in a short time frame. Let's be
honest, who in this body know about ergonomics and the technical
aspects of a nurse's day to day job?
Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing
this seriously flawed bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Congress adopted the current system over a
hundred years ago because it recognized the necessity of assigning the
job of crafting appropriate regulations to the scientific, economic,
legal, and other experts in agencies. The REINS Act is an extreme
departure from current procedures designed only to stymie the
development of regulations with which the industry does not want to
comply.
The current system of administrative agencies of the federal
government began more than 100 years ago, and developed through the
20th century. It was codified in its present form in the Administrative
Procedures Act. The REINS Act guts this precedent, and replaces it with
insurmountable hurdles.
Congress already has the power to stop regulations if extreme
circumstances dictate under the Congressional Review Act. The REINS Act
requires agencies to submit new final rules to Congress for review,
delaying the effective date of those rules to permit Congress to block
them, and establishes a fast-track process for legislation proposed to
overrule a regulation.
The bill would make it virtually impossible for an approval
resolution to pass because it does not entirely prohibit a filibuster.
Since the bill does not clearly prohibit a filibuster in the Senate,
more specifically it does not prohibit a filibuster on a motion to take
up a matter, it would empower a few, or even one Senator, to block
regulations.
The legislation gives Congress a short 70-day window to approve a
regulation, and if either chamber fails to do so during that time
period, the regulation is deemed to have been rejected, and Congress is
barred from subsequently voting to approve the regulation or one
``substantially similar'' to it for the remainder of that Congress. The
70-day requirement will make it next to impossible for any regulations
to be approved.
Resolutions approving regulations would first have to be cleared by
committees. The vast majority of bills introduced in Congress die in
committee, and there is no reason to believe that new regulations
wouldn't suffer the same fate.
Claims about so-called ``job-killing'' regulations are a fabrication,
a reiteration of the same doomsday rhetoric that has been used to
oppose virtually every major step forward for health and safety. In
actuality, the REINS Act is about giving representatives of industry
more opportunities to kill regulations they find inconvenient, posing a
great detriment to public safety and health.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, as modified by the
amendment printed in part A of House Report 113-187, shall be
considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 367

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 2013''.

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.
The report of the Comptroller General shall include an
assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural steps
required by paragraph (1)(B) and an assessment of whether the
major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on private-
sector activity.
``(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.

[[Page H5316]]

``(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.
``(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) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with
jurisdiction.
``(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,

[[Page H5317]]

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
``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
``(5) The term `submission date or publication date',
except as otherwise provided in this chapter, means--
``(A) in the case of a major rule, the date on which the
Congress receives the report submitted under section
801(a)(1); and
``(B) in the case of a nonmajor rule, the later of--
``(i) the date on which the Congress receives the report
submitted under section 801(a)(1); and
``(ii) the date on which the nonmajor rule is published in
the Federal Register, if so published.

``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. 4. 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.''.

SEC. 5. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY OF RULES.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to determine, as of the date of
the enactment of this Act--
(1) how many rules (as such term is defined in section 804
of title 5, United States Code) were in effect;
(2) how many major rules (as such term is defined in
section 804 of title 5, United States Code) were in effect;
and
(3) the total estimated economic cost imposed by all such
rules.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to Congress that contains the
findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be 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. Scalise

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, 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 5, line 17, insert after the period the following:
``Moreover, as a tax on carbon emissions increases energy
costs on consumers, reduces economic growth and is therefore
detrimental to individuals, families and businesses, the
REINS Act includes in the definition of a major rule, any
rule that implements or provides for the imposition or
collection of a tax on carbon emissions.''.
Page 20, strike lines 10 through 14, and insert the
following:
``(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--
``(A) has resulted in or is likely to result
Page 20, line 15, redesignate subparagraph (A) as clause
(i).
Page 20, line 17, redesignate subparagraph (B) as clause
(ii).
Page 20, line 21, redesignate subparagraph (C) as clause
(iii).
Page 20, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 20, insert after line 25 the following:
(B) is a rule that implements or provides for the
imposition or collection of a carbon tax.
Page 22, insert after line 8 the following:
``(6) The term 'carbon tax' means a fee, levy, or price
on--
``(A) emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions
generated by the burning of coal, natural gas, or oil; or
``(B) coal, natural gas, or oil based on emissions,
including carbon dioxide emissions that would be generated
through the fuel's combustion.''.

[[Page H5318]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment forward on the
REINS Act to simply prohibit the Obama administration from imposing a
carbon tax on the United States. If they wanted to impose that kind of
tax, they could not do it through regulation. Of course, we've heard
the Obama administration, from President Obama to his EPA Administrator
and others, talking about various forms of taxes on energy that they
want to impose. Whether it's a carbon tax, whether it's a cap-and-
trade-type scheme, they've continued to throw out that opportunity to
impose that kind of radical regulation by themselves without action
from Congress.
Clearly, as we talk about the REINS Act and we talk about any kind of
regulation having over a $100 million impact on our economy, we want to
make it very clear that any attempt to impose a carbon tax would fall
under that same definition of ``major rule'' where they could not do it
by regulation.
If you look at what's been studied on this issue--again, this idea of
a carbon tax has been floating around for a while by the Obama
administration. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr.
Chairman, did a study, and it's titled ``The Economic Outcomes of a
U.S. Carbon Tax.'' Let me tell you, it's not pretty some of the things
that they talk about in this study.
If the Obama administration had their way and imposed a tax on
carbon, manufacturing output in energy-intensive sectors, for example,
could drop by as much as 15 percent. We're talking real job losses that
would come to this country.
What would it do to families in terms of energy costs? How would it
affect them? In the same study, they say, just in the first year of a
carbon tax, we would see an increase in the cost of natural gas by more
than 40 percent, and the price of gasoline at the pump would go up by
20 cents a gallon. That's just in the first year of a carbon tax. It
would have devastating impacts on our economy.
Clearly, if you look at what President Obama and his administration
officials are doing and saying, they want to keep the door open to
impose a carbon tax through regulation. This amendment says absolutely
not.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment to a bad bill, so
it's doubly bad.
This would take almost anything that protects the air, the water, the
public from carbon emissions away from the opportunity of the EPA to
protect us. Many cities, such as Houston, Texas, and L.A. and other
cities, have problems with smog. They have programs that they have to
put a price on pollutants that cause urban smog, and these programs are
part of the State-approved implementation plans through the EPA to
protect the air. They are improving the air quality in Houston and Los
Angeles, but under this amendment, if Texas or California ever needed
to change these programs, they wouldn't be able to do so. Los Angeles
has had enough smog, so has Houston and the rest of the country, and we
have to be able to have laws that effectively protect our air.
Public health programs are important, and the amendment would risk
the ability of EPA also to have its sanctions that they put into place.
Right now, EPA, to ensure civil enforcement procedures, they change
their penalties every 4 years to keep up with inflation so they're
effective deterrents. This would stop this from happening, and
eventually the deterrents would be less than necessary to stop bad
actors from engaging in risky behavior that causes harm to the
environment and harm to humans.
We just saw in January that Transocean agreed to pay $1 billion to
resolve Federal Clean Water Act civil penalty claims for the 3-month-
long oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the BP there. BP also has got the
same risk. If we don't allow the penalties to be adjusted for
inflation, they won't have an effect. The sanctions won't deter bad
actors. We saw it in the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion, and we see it
as it applies to the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and all those others.
The bottom line is this could have unintended consequences, but its
intended consequence is to protect the oil industry from regulations
and imperil the American public. This is a bad amendment to a bad bill,
and I ask my colleagues to defeat it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, if I could go back to that National
Association of Manufacturers study on the impact of a carbon tax, the
gentleman from Tennessee might be interested in knowing that in
Tennessee alone, in the first year of a carbon tax, household utilities
would go up by 14 percent, and, in fact, they could experience job
losses of up to 40,000 lost jobs just in the State of Tennessee in year
one, with a 40 percent increase in their natural gas prices.
I wanted to point that out, and then yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is a good amendment to a good bill, and I support it.
By requiring all new major regulations to be submitted to Congress
for approval, the REINS Act provides a powerful check on overreaching
executive action. This check could not come sooner. The Obama
administration increasingly, and increasingly openly, is pursuing
unilateral regulatory action to thwart Congress' decision not to pass
legislation the administration desires. This includes legislation that
would impose a carbon tax as part of the administration's climate
agenda.
The amendment guarantees that no carbon tax can be imposed unless
Congress consents to it, no matter how much the Obama administration
would like to impose such a dramatic tax by executive fiat. This is the
people's House. This is where new public policy should be established,
and this amendment is a good one to assure that this is where policy
related to carbon taxes is made, not in the administration.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'll just reiterate that this is a bad amendment to a bad bill. It
basically puts the interests of special industry--the gas and oil
industry, particularly--above the American public's health, clean air,
and the environment. If you want to have an Earth that we can give to
the next generation that's in as good a shape so that their lungs can
survive in it, you won't be for this type of regulation, this
amendment, or for this bill.
I ask us to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I just want to point out that clearly the Obama administration must
be very interested in imposing a tax on carbon through regulation. The
fact that the opposition has objected to this and stated all of the
reasons that they think a carbon tax should be imposed tells you that
they are holding out for that opportunity.
Of course, if you look at the devastating impacts of a carbon tax--
there are a lot of good studies out there. Again, I go back to the
National Association of Manufacturers. It's a very respected national
organization, people that stand up for American jobs. The report they
did, entitled, ``Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax,'' is
devastating.
Clearly, the administration wants to do this. If it's such a good
idea, bring the idea to Congress; bring it through the House; bring it
through the Senate. They could get their floor leaders in the Senate to
bring it up tomorrow, but they don't want this kind of scrutiny.
Just the other day, the President was in Tennessee bragging about all
these new jobs plans that he has; and while he was doing it,
ironically, in another State, his new EPA Administrator was talking
about climate change. In fact, she called climate change the
``opportunity of a lifetime,'' and that the EPA would continue to
impose regulations

[[Page H5319]]

despite what we think here in Congress.
That's not the way the legislative process works. That's not the
system of government our great Founders created. They said, if an idea
is so good, bring it to the people's House; bring it to the Senate, and
pass it that way. Don't try to impose it through radical regulation and
devastate our economy.
I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. This amendment
would prevent the President and the EPA from bypassing Congress and
imposing a devastating national energy tax that would affect every
American.
Struggling Americans who have been unable to find a job or have not
seen their paychecks grow would pay this national energy tax every time
they pay their utility bills or fill up their gas tanks or go to the
grocery store. It would also be another tax on manufacturers and
another increased cost of doing business under the Obama
administration.
House Republicans have been fighting to fix our broken tax code to
make it simpler, fairer and flatter for American families and
businesses. We cannot let the Obama Administration make an end run
around the Congress' Constitutional responsibility for tax policy and
use the regulatory process to impose a national energy tax that will
cost trillions of dollars in economic growth and lost opportunities for
hard-working Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support the Scalise amendment--to ensure tax
policy starts where the Constitution's Framers intended--here in the
people's House.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCALISE. 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 gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

{time} 1915

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, beginning on line 12, strike ``sections 804(2)(A),
804(2)(B), and 804(2)(C)'' and insert ``clauses (i) through
(iii) of section 804(2)(A) or within section 804(2)(B)''.
Page 20, beginning on line 11, strike ``the
Administrator'', and insert ``--''
``(A) the Administrator''.
Page 20, line 15, by redesignating subparagraph (A) as
clause (i).
Page 20, line 17, by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
clause (ii).
Page 20, line 21, by redesignating subparagraph (C) as
clause (iii).
Page 20, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert
``; or''.
Page 20, insert after line 25 the following:
``(B) is made by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and that would have a significant impact on
a substantial number of agricultural entities, as determined
by the Secretary of Agriculture (who shall publish such
determination in the Federal Register).''.
Page 22, insert after line 8 the following:
``(6) The term `agricultural entity' means any entity
involved in or related to agricultural enterprise, including
enterprises that are engaged in the business of production of
food and fiber, ranching and raising of livestock,
aquaculture, and all other farming and agricultural related
industries.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the bipartisan Davis-Peterson
amendment, which helps address the disconnect between the EPA and the
agricultural community. Under our amendment, EPA rules that have a
significant impact on a substantial number of agricultural entities--as
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture--would be considered ``major
rules.''
Under the REINS Act, major rules need congressional approval. We view
this as another way to give agriculture a stronger voice when it comes
to EPA regulations. As I travel throughout the 13th District of
Illinois and listen to farmers and producers, one of their top concerns
is regulatory actions by EPA. Ag has been a bright spot in our economy.
For every $1 billion in agriculture exports, more than 8,000 jobs are
supported here at home. With USDA projecting $139.5 billion in ag
exports for fiscal year 2013, American agriculture will support more
than 1 million jobs.
This is a good story, and my colleagues and I on the House
Agriculture Committee do our best to tell it. However, our farmers
remain concerned that the EPA does not understand production
agriculture. These are concerns we take very seriously. We aren't the
only ones that see this problem; EPA recognizes it as well. Acting
Administrator For Water, Nancy Stoner, told me when I asked her if her
agency was aware of the disconnect between EPA and the agricultural
community:

We are actively working with those groups to improve
communication on issues as to which we have had some
difficulties. And I will acknowledge that we have had some,
and we are doing the very best we can to improve that
situation.

This amendment provides a solution to the problem by allowing the
Secretary of Agriculture to examine EPA regs and identify those that
have a significant impact on a significant number of agricultural
entities. The USDA must be included in these decisions and equipped
with the authority to identify these rules. This agency understands
farmers and works best with them on a daily basis. We believe this
amendment would improve communication between EPA and the USDA.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield myself an additional 30
seconds.
It would improve communication between the EPA and USDA, give
agriculture a place at the table during the process, and ultimately
result in getting government out of the way to allow our family farmers
to do what they do best. I urge support of this bipartisan amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, again, this is just another amendment in
another area in what's totally a bad concept. The basic concept is that
any rule or regulation would have to go through a passage in both the
House and the Senate and Presidential approval to become effective. And
it would have to happen in committees only on Tuesdays or Thursday, and
within 15 days they would have to pass it. Basically, this is creating
a Rube Goldberg type of legislative mechanism that would thwart the
creation of regulations and rules that protect the American public.
That's just plumb wrong.
What this does is tries to gut the EPA, and I'm shocked that my good
friends on the other side of the aisle would try to gut the work of one
of their great Presidents, Richard Nixon. He served in this House,
served in the Senate, and 4 years as vice president. I think he almost
eked out 5 years, he had some kind of ethically challenged problem when
he was President, but he did create the EPA. He did some good
environmental things. I think those things should be standards for the
Republican Party. They should hold up the EPA and remember Richard
Nixon as one of their party standard bearers, one of the men who served
probably the longest time in a major capacity as President and Vice
President and Senate leader. And his work on the House Un-American
Activities Committee--we can't forget that in this House. To forget
Richard Nixon and to minimize his work, I am just amazed, because
that's one of the great heroes on the other side of the aisle, I
believe.
But the EPA is important. It was good work that he gave us, and it
shouldn't be gutted. And to make these rules have to go through passage
in the House and Senate, we know the House and the Senate don't get
along. They mentioned we got the loan bill through. That's the first
thing we've kind of done since we did the Violence Against Women and
kind of saved the storm victims of Superstorm Sandy. We really haven't
got much done. Oh, I forget, a couple of post offices, we

[[Page H5320]]

agreed on them. And maybe some coins for the Hall of Fame or something.
But to get these major rules done, it wouldn't happen. And so we're
jeopardizing the American public. I urge us to defeat this as a bad
amendment to a bad bill. It is deleting the legacy of Richard Nixon.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I respect and thank the
gentleman from Tennessee for his comments on Richard Nixon. However, I
was not yet in kindergarten when Mr. Nixon served, so, therefore, I do
not remember him creating the EPA, but I thank him for reminding me of
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Illinois for offering this amendment. It is another good amendment.
I also want to say to my good friend from Tennessee that I was a
little older when Richard Nixon was in office. We are not minimizing
what he did; we are going to maximize the amount of attention that
Congress pays to the EPA when they get it wrong, particularly when the
Secretary of Agriculture determines that any regulation issued by the
EPA will have a significant impact on a substantial number of
agricultural entities. We ought to take a look at that. As a result, it
subjects such regulations to congressional approval before they can
become effective.

This is an important step to rein in what is often regarded as the
most overreaching of all Federal regulatory agencies. The EPA's actions
and proposals have been particularly problematic for America's farmers,
including small farmers. This includes, for example, the EPA actions
aimed at farm dust.
The Secretary of Agriculture has a greater incentive than EPA to
ensure that potential adverse impacts on agricultural entities have
been adequately and accurately assessed. The amendment guarantees that
regulation that should be characterized as major due to their impacts
on agricultural entities will be so characterized and submitted to
Congress for approval.
I urge my colleagues to support this very worthy amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, was alive when Richard Nixon was
doing his service, and I remember him getting on that helicopter,
waving good-bye. There were regulations that made sure that he was able
to get away from Washington and get home to California, and we need to
make sure those regulations that might be impeded by this REINS Act are
still in effect so that Presidents like him can make their escape.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I wonder, even though I don't remember Richard Nixon getting up and
flying away, I wonder if the EPA would let that helicopter leave
Washington, D.C., today.
But I have to tell you, this is a commonsense, bipartisan amendment
that gives our farmers a stronger voice and a better place at the table
when EPA is considering these regulations that impact the ag community.
And I want to thank Ranking Member Peterson for supporting this
effort as well. I urge my colleagues' support. I want to say thank you,
Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Tennessee for making this actually a
lively debate tonight. And hopefully a few more viewers on C-SPAN are
smiling this evening because of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, beginning on line 12, strike ``sections 804(2)(A),
804(2)(B), and 804(2)(C)'' and insert ``clauses (i) through
(iii) of section 804(2)(A) or within section 804(2)(B)''.
Page 20, beginning on line 11, strike ``the
Administrator'', and insert ``--''
``(A) the Administrator''.
Page 20, line 15, by redesignating subparagraph (A) as
clause (i).
Page 20, line 17, by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
clause (ii).
Page 20, line 21, by redesignating subparagraph (C) as
clause (iii).
Page 20, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert
``; or''.
Page 20, insert after line 25 the following:
``(B) is made under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (Pub. Law 11-148).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I have traveled across the Eighth Congressional
District of Missouri from my hometown of Salem to the Ozark Hills in
Wright County, Douglas, Howell County, to the banks of the Mississippi
River, one of the largest concerns that my constituents have is the
uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act.
Individuals are concerned about the relationship with their doctor
and what their costs are going to be. Businesses are left with a
tremendous uncertainty. They are understaffed because they are afraid
to hire additional employees, and they're also firing employees just to
fall below the 50 individual threshold.
The effects of the Affordable Care Act are adversely affecting health
care and the jobs of folks all across this great country. That is why
I'm offering my amendment to revise the definition of major regulations
to include any regulation under the Affordable Care Act. With over
3,000 pages of Federal regulations already issued, and many more to
follow, Congress must prevent this widely unsupported law from causing
further damage to our health care system.
Mr. Chairman, there is broad bipartisan opposition to the Affordable
Care Act. The administration has demonstrated its own certainty through
the delays to several key provisions of the bill. Congress must assert
its role in oversight and give the American people their voice back in
government, away from the bureaucrats. My amendment does just that. I
urge adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a microcosm of this 113th Congress;
the macro has been the 40th attempt coming up to repeal ObamaCare. This
is a microcosm to try to defeat ObamaCare through a little regulation.
It seems like the preoccupation that the other side has with what is
one of the most important social safety network provisions passed by
this House in history, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and then
the Affordable Care Act, is amazing. We've had 40 bills, and now this
rule and regulation, to try to repeal the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act means your child can
stay on your insurance unless they are 26 years of age. It means you
can't have lifetime caps on your health insurance. It means you can't
be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. It means that
being a woman doesn't classify you as having a preexisting condition.
It says that certain care comes to you, like colonoscopies or
mammograms, without a copay, and it means yearly annual checkups, which
can detect disease early and save people's lives. It is a way to
provide health care for at least 40 million people in this country who
don't have health care.
And it has already been shown to drive down the cost of health care.
For those States that have worked with us and that have exchanges, we
have seen reductions in what was expected to be the cost of insurance
from 25 to 30 to even 50 percent in different States. Health care costs
are not rising at the rates that they were otherwise because of the
fact that we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
It's important that individuals get more community health centers,
which come with this provision. Lots of people, particularly in my
district, they

[[Page H5321]]

don't live near hospitals and doctors. They need community health
centers, and community health centers have been funded and created to
give people access to health care otherwise denied.
We are the last industrialized country on the face of the Earth to
provide health care for its people, the last industrialized country to
do so. That is one of the shames that we have tried to cure with this
bill.
And this provision, this amendment to this REINS Act, would deny
people that health care coverage. It would say if you have a
preexisting condition, too bad, you don't get insurance.
As President Obama said, the Affordable Care Act is insurance reform
on steroids. Do you want to have the health insurance industry have
total control without regulations, without controls, then you want to
defeat it. But the American public doesn't want that. They want their
health care costs to contained, and they don't want the insurance
companies to have total control. They like the idea of their children
having insurance up to the time they're 26, and to have preventive care
come without copays, not have yearly caps on your insurance or lifetime
caps on your insurance benefits that can be paid out.
So this is a sad state that we've spent so much time in this Congress
trying to deny people health care and save their lives.
So this is a bad amendment. I would ask us to defeat it.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the fine
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him
and support this important amendment.
The REINS Act restores to Congress the accountability for regulatory
decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. This amendment
strengthens congressional accountability for regulations under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You know, ObamaCare? That
legislation that has 400 new authorities, 400 new ways for the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and other bureaucrats to
regulate the American people, businesses, large and small, local
governments, State governments, health care providers?
Yeah, that one. Imposed over the will of the American people,
implementation of ObamaCare has demonstrated that the act imposes a
detrimental and unworkable reform of the Nation's health care system.
And one after another, promises made to the American people by the
act's supporters when the law was passed have been broken.
Moreover, the Obama administration's own actions to waive or suspend
ObamaCare requirements have made clear that regulatory actions to
implement the act form a ``seamless web.''
Too often, actions to avoid one adverse effect of the act's
implementation send ripple effects of unfairness or other harmful
consequences throughout the ObamaCare web, requiring adjustments to
other aspects of implementation.
This, too, justifies the amendment's requirement that Congress
approve any new regulation promulgated under the act, and I urge my
colleagues to support this excellent amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, what this shows is exactly what the
situation is. You've got a majority in the House that's against the
Affordable Care Act, and you've got a majority in the Senate that's for
it.
To have any rules and regulations under it go into effect, the House
and the Senate would both have to approve it, which means you could
have one House, not both Houses, the way we work, it's a bicameral
legislature and the House and the Senate have to work together and pass
the bill to become law.
But one House, by not passing it, could kill it--one House veto. This
Republican Congress could veto every single regulation under the
Affordable Care Act.
And then preexisting conditions, no insurance. Lifetime caps, back in
effect. Yearly caps, back in effect. Child's 23, nope, can't stay on
dad and mom's policy anymore.
Get hurt, go broke. Too bad. That's just wrong.
And that's what this would do for any regulations. One House could
veto and kill legislation. That's antithetical to the bicameral
legislature.
That's just one of the many reasons why we should defeat this
amendment, defeat the bill, and go on and try to pass a jobs bill, and
kill sequester, and see that the National Institutes of Health, which
is cut $1.6 billion by sequester, isn't cut.
That's our Department of Defense. They protect us from Alzheimer's,
AIDS, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's. Those are the
enemies. The National Institutes of Health is the Department of
Defense, and we shouldn't be cutting $1.6 billion from them because
we're all going to be victims.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is truly a jobs bill. When you're looking at over
170,000 pages of Federal rules and regulations that affect jobs, this
amendment will help alleviate that.
As I've traveled across the Eighth Congressional District, I've had
businesses, one after the other, that said they had 56 employees. Well,
they were going to reduce those employees because of one piece of
legislation that was passed out of this Chamber that Congress never
even took the time to read until after they passed it, and yet they've
even passed it.
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is it affects more than one-
sixth of our Nation's economy; and because of the burdensome
regulations that are being promulgated from the Affordable Care Act,
businesses are scared to death to hire additional employees, and they
are firing additional employees.
I have had restaurant owners in our district that have sold
restaurants because they want to fall below the 50-employee mark.
Folks, this is a jobs bill. Less government regulation that is
breaking the backs of small businesses is what we need to do to turn
this country around.
Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to adopt this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 gentleman from Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Latham

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, line 15, insert before ``intended to implement''
the following: ``taken by or that will be taken by the
Federal agency promulgating the rule that are''.
Page 6, line 17, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 6, after line 17, insert the following (and
redesignate provisions accordingly):
``(v) a list of any other related regulatory actions taken
by or that will be taken by any other Federal agency with
authority to implement the same statutory provision or
regulatory objective that are intended to implement such
provision or objective, of which the Federal agency
promulgating the rule is aware, as well as the individual and
aggregate economic effects of those actions; and''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, while my amendment is very simple, it's
aimed at addressing a very complex problem, the problem of duplicative
and conflicting Federal regulations.
In the underlying bill, Federal agencies are required to submit,
along with the rule they want Congress to approve, a list of other
regulatory actions to implement the same statute or regulatory
objective, in other words, Mr. Chairman, to actually investigate
whether the regulations may be redundant.

[[Page H5322]]

It's not clear whether the requirement to list other regulatory
actions applies only to the promulgating agency or other agencies. The
amendment clarifies that this list must include related regulatory
actions by any other Federal agency.
Earlier this year, the GAO delivered to Congress its third annual
report on duplication in government programs, identifying 17 specific
areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication where multiple
programs and activities are creating inefficiencies.
Unfortunately, these inefficiencies result in regulatory duplication,
heaping needless costs and paperwork on businesses at a time when our
economy continues to struggle enough already.
A group run by former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently
compiled information on regulations in the specific problem areas
identified by the GAO, using the government database contained by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This report found 470
related paperwork requirements, 642 million hours of regulatory
duplication involving 990 Federal forms, and at least $20 billion in
compliance costs to employees.
Take these examples:
We have three agencies issuing regulations on catfish inspections, at
a cost of 2 million work hours and $146 million in compliance costs.
Ten different agencies handle Medicare forms submitted by health care
providers, generating 486 million hours of paperwork and 281 different
forms.
Nine different agencies administer higher education assistance
programs, involving 66 Federal forms and duplication, resulting in 47
million hours of paperwork at a compliance cost of $3 billion.
Congress must act to eliminate or consolidate duplicate and
inefficient programs; but in the meantime, agencies must at least
acknowledge requirements imposed by other agencies working on the same
issues and work to minimize burdens on our small businesses.
According to the Small Business Administration, it already costs
American businesses at least $8,000 and often more than $10,000 per
employee to comply with Federal regulations.
It's no wonder that the massive Federal regulatory regime is
consistently cited as a roadblock to job growth and economic recovery.
I believe this amendment will help clarify areas of overlap and
highlight opportunities for reducing the compliance burden faced by
American employers.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because
it would add yet another onerous and unnecessary burden on agencies and
will further stifle agency rulemaking.
Among other things, the REINS Act requires that an agency issuing a
rule submit reports to Congress and the GAO containing a list of
related regulatory actions intended to implement the same statutory
provision or regulatory objective as the rule at issue, together with
the individual and aggregate economic effects of those actions.
This amendment would add to that list actions taken, or that will be
taken, by Federal agencies other than the agency issuing the rule to
meet the same objectives. Such a requirement means that an agency
issuing a rule would now be obliged to survey the vast panoply of
Federal agencies to determine what other actions are being taken by
other agencies before it could issue a rule.
Congress did not create agencies, Mr. Chairman, to keep tabs on other
agencies. This amendment would only serve to divert already limited
agency resources away from protecting the American people.
This amendment is just a further effort to derail rulemaking. It's
placing another burden on already limited agency resources and is
really just busy work.
So for those reasons I rise in opposition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding,
and I support his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, interrelated Federal regulations are a common feature
of the modern regulatory landscape. Numerous major regulations form
part of a web of regulations agencies develop to implement one
statutory division or one statutory goal.
In addition, numerous regulatory statutes entrust rulemaking
authority over a given problem to more than one agency. This is the
case, for example, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' joint authority over wetlands. It is
also the case with the EPA's and the Department of Transportation's
joint authority over fuel economy standards.
The amendment requires that agencies, when they submit new major
regulations to Congress for approval, provide a list of related
regulatory actions that the submitting agency or other agencies have
taken or will take to implement the same statutory provision or
regulatory objective. Seems pretty reasonable to me to have to find out
what other regulations are impacting the same objective.

This helpful amendment will provide Congress with more complete
information on the extent of regulations agencies have taken or plan to
take to implement an authorizing statute or achieve a regulatory goal.
That information will better enable Congress to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the submitted regulation.
This can only improve congressional accountability and the regulatory
process, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in response, I would point out
that with respect to interrelated regulations, different regulatory
authorities have different regulatory objectives. And so, to require
that one agency survey the other to see whether or not there are any
similar or the same objectives, with no power or authority to decide to
do away with a particular regulation, based on an objective that is no
longer suitable, I think, is not something that this amendment allows
for; and it's also something that agencies themselves are not equipped
to do.
I agree that we need to have some mechanism whereby regulatory
regulations can be looked at, modified, strengthened or weakened or
done away with at any particular time. But this anti-regulatory
legislation and this amendment will not accomplish that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time there is.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 15 seconds remaining.
The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LATHAM. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just obviously be very brief. But
the gentleman was talking earlier about opposing this amendment because
it creates busy work for the agencies.
What about the busy work of the small businesses to comply with these
mountains and mountains of regulations?
And the previous speakers have said the biggest reason that people
are not hiring today is because of the cost of regulations.
I would ask for this amendment to be passed.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1945

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.

[[Page H5323]]

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, line 24, insert before the semicolon the following:
``, including an analysis of any jobs added or lost,
differentiating between public and private sector jobs''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, tonight we engage this House to talk about some
commonsense legislation that would, in fact, allow the American people
and this Congress to understand more about rules and regulations as
they are presented that the American people have to live under.
My amendment requires that an agency submitting a report on any
proposed Federal rule include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained
or lost as a result of the implementation of any rules that fit within
the REINS Act.
This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because many times rules and
regulations are implemented without regard for what the impact would be
on the people who have to live under them. We believe this is common
sense. We believe this happens in businesses every day. We're asking
for a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the rules that are
written, combined with the impact that they would have upon job losses,
whether it be the government or the free enterprise system.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment presupposes that
regulations depress job creation. To the contrary, there's no credible
evidence that regulations depress job creation.
The majority's own witness at one of our hearings clearly debunked
the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth of
the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think thank, stated
in his prepared remarks that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to
confusion in regulatory debates.'' Also, he stated that ``the
employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
Nonetheless, I appreciate that this amendment recognizes that
regulations could create jobs. I am, however, concerned about this
amendment because it would add to the analytical burdens of agencies a
speculative assessment of jobs added and lost and how many of those
jobs would be added or lost to the public and private sectors.
To the extent that regulations have anything to do with jobs, H.R.
367 proponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment, which is
upcoming, which simply exempts from H.R. 367's congressional approval
mechanism all rules that OMB determines would result in net job
creation. This way, job creating rules would not effectively be vetoed,
which would be the precise result under H.R. 367.
Also, instead of trying to make Congress a superadministrative
agency, what we should be doing is considering actual job creation
legislation. We also should be talking about how to help middle class
families who are struggling financially.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity to
rise in support of this important amendment and to rise in support
overall of the REINS Act, a critical tool in the battle against
overregulation, which is destroying jobs.
The gentleman from Georgia talked about whether or not regulations
actually destroy jobs. Well, from my home State of Kentucky, I can tell
you we've lost 5,700 coal mining jobs in east Kentucky as a result of
this administration's overzealous overregulation of our coal industry.
Small business owners from across Kentucky continually tell me that
they want to create more jobs and grow their businesses. They want to
help put food on the table, gas in the tank, and more money in the
pockets of Kentucky families, who are hurting under this
administration's war on coal. But costly and burdensome regulations
coming out of unaccountable Federal agencies are raising their cost of
doing business, leading to higher prices for consumers, fewer jobs for
workers, and weakened American competitiveness.
While Federal regulations wreak havoc on families in Kentucky, small
businesses, and our overall economy, the unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats writing them are hiding behind the fact that they are not
always required to fully analyze the impact their proposal will have on
jobs.
If you want to know about the impact of these regulations on jobs,
come to eastern Kentucky and see those lost jobs.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In response, Mr. Chairman, I would say that
the old ways of creating or producing energy--those ways that foul up
our environment and pollute our air and water and cause health concerns
to the people of this great Nation--those types of jobs, fortunately,
yield to a brighter day of new renewable and clean forms of energy.
That's a growth industry that, if this legislature could only see the
brightness of the future, I think we would have a whole lot more jobs
created as the jobs of the past recede into history.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we see 25 million people struggling in
this country as a result of that same attitude that the Democrat Party
and the President has about having jobs go off into the past and
looking to the future.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I would like to thank my colleague from
Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I'm a proud cosponsor of this amendment. This is a
commonsense amendment that brings to mind the irony that, yesterday,
the President of the United States came to the Capitol to brief certain
Members of Congress on the other side of the aisle about another phony
jobs plan that he's putting forth at the same time his signature
legislation, ObamaCare, is killing jobs in America.

This amendment would make sure that we measured how many jobs his
phony jobs plan is going to create versus how many jobs ObamaCare is
going to kill in this country. It is essential.
And forgive me, Mr. Chairman, for not having compassion for the
bureaucrats who are going to be burdened by analyzing this information,
when we have millions of Americans--hardworking taxpayers of this
country--worried about keeping their own jobs and getting a new job.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment wholeheartedly.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, ObamaCare is resulting in 30 to
40 million people having access to the health care system, and that's
not going to create any jobs? When you're bringing that many people
into the health care system, that's going to kill jobs? How many more
doctors will be needed? Maybe 20,000 will be needed to accommodate and
treat those people. How many nurses and medical care practitioners will
we need to train in order to accommodate the growth in the health
industry that ObamaCare brings about?
We have to use our common sense. ObamaCare is not going to result in
job loss.
Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. I find it interesting that today we're talking about the
country is in such danger because of ObamaCare and regulations and
rules and all these other things President Obama has done, and the Dow
Jones Industrial average almost hit an all-time high of 15,600 and
change.
So somewhere something must be working. Thank you, President Obama.
Keep going.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman is expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

[[Page H5324]]

Mr. WENSTRUP. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor, I rise in support of this important
amendment to protect and promote job creation in both southern Ohio,
where I'm from, and for this entire country.
Business owners and entrepreneurs currently live and work under an
executive branch hostile to the free enterprise system and a President
whose governing philosophy has been: You didn't build that.
Agencies like the EPA, Health and Human Services, and the Department
of Education hand down new regulations with little regard for the real-
world impacts. These bureaucrats do not care if jobs are lost, as long
as their rules are enforced.
This amendment requires an analysis of how many jobs would be added
or lost due to new regulations brought forth under this or any future
administrations. This amendment also requires the distinction as to
whether the jobs affected are government or private sector jobs.
This amendment further protects real-world businesses from
bureaucrats who are often punitive rather than constructive and are
often far removed from everyday economic realities.
I stand in support of this amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, tonight, we've had three new first-term
Members of Congress who have come on the floor to talk about things
that are important to them, and it's a balance. It's making a
difference so that people back home have confidence in the rules and
regulations that are promulgated by the Federal Government and that
Congress knows how we can react and act upon those.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, 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 20, line 10, insert after ``means any rule'' the
following: ``(other than a special rule)''.
Page 21, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes any special rule''.
Page 22, after line 8, insert the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule pertaining to
nuclear reactor safety standards.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission from the bill so that the NRC can continue to protect
Americans from nuclear disasters under current law, rather than the
bill's proposed system.
Today's bill, H.R. 367, in the name of so-called reform, adds over 60
new procedural and analytical hoops agencies and departments must go
through before a regulation can be issued. The result is simply to
impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one
of it's most basic functions: protecting the health and welfare of its
citizens.
Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health,
safety, and the environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense
Counsel, Public Citizens, Defenders of Wildlife, and U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, oppose this bill. According, to the Coalition
for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such
groups, this bill ``will grind to a halt the rulemaking process'' and
``is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our critical public
safeguards and promote industry interests instead of protecting
American citizens.''

{time} 2000

Americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their
health and safety at risk. One example that highlights this fact is the
subject of this amendment--nuclear power.
The risks and dangers of nuclear power were made all the more real by
the nuclear disaster in Japan at Fukushima 2 years ago. We all watched
in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and
resulting tsunami. That disaster then caused its own disaster--the
meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. That
led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-
kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and displacement of
156,000 people. Inside the evacuation zone all farming has been
abandoned.
In 2011, Virginia itself was struck by a relatively rare but strong
earthquake felt up and down the eastern seaboard. It caused a nuclear
power plant near the epicenter to have to go offline. For me, this
concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, about
which many people, myself included, have had concerns for years, lies
just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district on an
earthquake fault. There are 20 million people living within a 50-mile
radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis
for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster.
Indian Point also sits near two fault lines and, according to the NRC,
is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience
core damage due to an earthquake.
To keep my constituents, and indeed all Americans, safe, I am
offering this amendment today. Because of the catastrophes that can
result in disasters--be they natural or manmade--at nuclear power
plants, prevention of meltdowns is the key. Since Fukushima, the NRC
has issued new rules designed to upgrade plants to withstand severe
events like earthquakes and to have enough backup power so as to avoid
a meltdown for a significant period of time.
The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to issue new
regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans and
to prevent nuclear disasters. However, this bill is intentionally
designed so new and vital regulations will likely never be put into
place. We cannot permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to never be
able to create new regulations ever again should the need arise.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to exempt
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the onerous new requirements for
rulemaking imposed by this bill. In that way, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission would continue to have the ability to safeguard public
health and safety, as it should.
We should not risk the lives of millions and millions of people. If a
danger becomes evident and the experts in charge of protecting against
that--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--deem some new protection
necessary, this bill would prevent those protections from going into
effect. So my amendment would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
with respect to safety regulations for nuclear power plants.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act Congressional
Approval Procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor
safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in nuclear safety. We
want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear
reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made. That is
precisely why I oppose the amendment.
By its terms, the amendment shields from the REINS Act Congressional
Approval Procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear
reactor safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them.
All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards,
whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS
Act. That way, agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety will
know that Congress must approve their major regulations

[[Page H5325]]

before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the
agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can
easily approve. It is a solution that everyone should support because
it makes Congress more accountable and assures agencies will write
better rules. All Americans will be safer for it.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, under current law, Congress can disapprove any proposed
rule and regulation under the Congressional Review Act. Under this
bill, no regulation could go into effect until Congress affirmatively
approved the regulation. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were to
approve some rule that reduces nuclear safety, Congress, under current
law, could block that rule.
What this bill says, and what my amendment seeks to exempt the NRC
from, is that no safety regulation can go into effect until Congress
gets around to approving it. The Republican leadership took the
appropriations bill for the Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development Departments off the floor yesterday allegedly because they
have no time to consider it. We've passed all of 12 bills this year for
the President's signature, and we would have hundreds or thousands of
regulations by all the different agencies that we would have to
consider. Most would never be approved simply because we would not have
time to consider them.
All this amendment says is, for regulations regarding nuclear
disasters, to prevent nuclear disasters, let Congress veto them if
necessary, but not kill them by not having the time to get to them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that, when it comes to
regulatory safety, the gentleman cites the Congressional Review Act.
I'll remind the House that, as I noted earlier, since 1996, it's been
used one time for ergonomic furniture. That is not a very good track
record when tens of thousands of regulations have been passed during
that time that should be reviewed by this Congress. This legislation
only asks that those regulations that cost more than $100 million
should be reviewed. But it's especially true of the most important
regulations related to, for example, the nuclear power industry where
safety is a very important standard, as is efficiency and making sure
that the American people have the electric power generation that they
need. So the Congress has great incentive to reach quick agreement on
regulations like that, and it's very important that we have that
jurisdiction.
But many regulations are not needed; they cost jobs in our economy. I
know those on the other side of the aisle have been citing academics
who claim that that's not the case. But I want to call attention to one
more academic who wrote just on January 18, 2011. He said:

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing
unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled
innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.

That academic's name is Barack Obama, and he is currently the
President of the United States.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. 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 gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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 rise in support of my
amendment, which is very simple: it would exclude from this bill any
rule that would result in net job growth.
I ask that my colleagues support this commonsense amendment to
promote job growth and help to strengthen the middle class. After all,
the stated purpose of the REINS Act is to grow the economy and create
jobs, isn't that correct?
Although this bill purports to grow the economy and create jobs,
nothing could be further from the truth. This bill's myopic focus on
gumming up the regulatory process will not create a single job. It
will, however, result in the loss of much-needed rules that protect the
health, safety, and well-being of the men, women, and children of
America.
I have profound concerns about the REINS Act. What would be its
impact on air and water quality? This bill would undermine the ability
of agencies to protect the public interest. It is a continuation of the
majority's anti-middle class, pro-big business, anti-regulatory
approach to governing.
The majority continues to rely on debunked partisan studies. Thee
studies presuppose that regulations have harmful effects on job growth.
Far from it. There is ample bipartisan evidence in support of the
opposite conclusion.
Regulations ensure that the water we consume, the air that we
breathe, the places where we work and where our kids go to school are
safe. Regulations ensure fairness in the workplace and in the
marketplace. Regulations are necessary to protect the have-nots from
the haves; whereas the REINS Act protects the haves from the have-nots.
Nevertheless, the House Republican leadership continues like an out-
of-control freight train to drive its reckless deregulatory agenda
through Congress. This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us
back in time to the early 1900s, when there was no minimum wage, no
workplace protections, and no limits on Wall Street.
If Republican leadership truly believed in growing the economy and
creating jobs we would have come together with a grand bargain a long
time ago. We could have agreed to a mix of spending cuts and tax
reforms to address the government's long-term debt. We could have
prevented the mindless austerity of sequestration which threatens our
still-fragile economic recovery. Instead, this Tea Party Congress could
not even muster the will to vote to fund the transportation bill
yesterday. This is yet another example of a ``do-nothing'' Congress
under the leadership of an anti-middle class Republican leadership.
Americans have a right to expect that their elected legislators will
enact laws that help create jobs, like doing something about
sequestration. My colleague, Mr. Hal Rogers, chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, hit the nail on the head yesterday when he
said, and I quote:
``Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary
cuts--must be brought to an end.''
American workers continue to face hurdles to providing for their
families, and I'm gravely concerned about the effects of sequestration
on my home State of Georgia. Last month, furloughs began for most
civilian Defense Department employees at Robins Air

[[Page H5326]]

Force Base and other military bases across Georgia. This won't just
affect the hardworking people at the base, like firefighters; it will
also have a substantial impact on the local economies.
As retired General Robert McMahon reports, the furloughs which began
last week will take $50 million out of the economy around the Robins
Air Force Base alone. Multiply that with the economic catastrophe
across other military bases in Georgia and throughout the country, and
you begin to understand the truly caustic effects of sequestration on
small businesses and on the economy. But instead of working together to
come to a bipartisan solution to the sequestration fiasco, this
Congress is continuing an agenda to make life worse for American
families.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to
promote job creation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS
Act Congressional Approval Procedures regulations that the Office of
Management and Budget determined 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 regulations job impact. Far too
often, OMB may be tempted to shave the analysis to skirt the bill's
congressional approval requirement. In addition, regulations alleged to
create 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 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's no guarantee that all
of the new green jobs will ever actually exist. And I would cite
Solyndra as perhaps the best evidence of promised jobs that don't exist
and cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars.
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 far too long,
where there is no accountability because decisions are made by
unelected agency officials.

{time} 2015

The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice. Let me give
you a few examples of this:
Regulatory agencies routinely estimate the benefits and costs of
regulatory changes under the assumption that any individuals that
become unemployed are instantly and constantly reemployed in nearly
identical jobs. But the EPA's employment impact analysis is frequently
flawed because it fails to account for the cascading employment effects
of regulation across interconnected industries and markets.
Using the proper full economy model, NERA Economic Consulting found
that the EPA's Utility MACT Rule would have a negative impact
equivalent to 180,000 to 215,000 lost jobs in 2015, versus the EPA's
claim of 8,000 net new jobs, and which, therefore, wouldn't come to the
Congress, even though private consultants say it would lose over
200,000 jobs. EPA claims it would create 8,000 jobs.
The EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would have had an economic
impact equivalent to the annual--annual--loss of 34,300 jobs from 2013
through 2037 versus the EPA's claimed 700 jobs gained annually.
Finally, the EPA's industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control
Technology--or MACT--Rule would have a negative impact equivalent to
27,585 jobs per year on average from 2013 through 2037, compared with
the EPA's claim of 2,200 per year claim.
All of this goes to show that this would be a shell game allowing the
executive branch to claim job increases when actually there are massive
job losses and, therefore, avoid the scrutiny of the people's House and
the entire United States Congress where these massive regulations
should come back for review and approval before they're implemented,
and before they cost those kind of jobs to Americans.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The right to close will not be established until
the time in opposition is claimed.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is it the proponent or the author of the amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. Under clause 3(c) of rule XVII, a manager in
opposition would have the right to close.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues. Whenever
they engage in debate, I know they have a serious commitment to the
process of this House and this Nation.
But I rise today to offer an amendment, and I hope that it addresses
the chairman's offer of legislative collegiality. If this is such an
important effort, then I believe that the amendments that have been
offered by my colleagues, and the one that I introduce as we speak, are
ones that makes this bill reasonable.
My amendment would except from the bill's congressional approval
requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security
organized and established in the backdrop of the heinous and tragic
terrorist act of 9/11. In fact, I can't imagine this legislation being
effective in the midst of tragedy and devastation.
I don't think my friend understands that there's nothing in the REINS
Act that prevents a filibuster. A filibuster means that we will never
get a resolution voted on by the two Houses--never--because it does not
negate a filibuster.
So in the midst of a crisis, where people are in need of relief by
the Department of Homeland Security, such as the Department of Homeland
Security having to act quickly to establish new or emergency
regulations in the protection of critical infrastructure, here it
comes, the dastardly REINS Act. I think we would be better off right
now to be debating H.R. 900 to eliminate the sequestration to bring
jobs back to America.
But I hope that this amendment will be considered, because I can't
imagine the very Department that was established to put its foot in the
gap now is going to be hindered by the REINS Act.

[[Page H5327]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from
Texas that the bill prohibits a filibuster in the Senate from being
used to block consideration of regulations that come before the
Congress.
We are making every effort to have that bipartisan collegiality that
she suggests, but I don't think this amendment accomplishes that. The
amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security 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 driver's licenses under the REAL
ID Act. More than a decade after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent
licenses to board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans,
DHS continues to keep this extension in place.
This is the kind of decisionmaking 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, and the REINS Act is available to do that.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to support the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
To the contrary, to my good friend from Virginia, the bill does not
entirely prohibit a filibuster. In fact, a filibuster can be used on
the procedural motion to bring the bill up, and in the Senate they can
never bring this up.
So let me remind my friends:
Galveston, 6,000 people dead and climbing, 1900; Hurricane Katrina,
one of the 10 worst, killing 1,836 in 2005; 1980, a heat wave in the
southern and central States killing 1,700; Chicago heat wave in 1995.
Disasters that need the relief that the American people deserve.
This tells us what we will be facing while a filibuster is going on
in the Senate. This is a map only of this year. Already disasters in
Washington State with mud slides, Oklahoma with tornados, Arizona with
wildfires, Miami with mud slides.
Then they want to block Homeland Security from developing regulations
for infrastructure, they want to stop what is going on with Hurricane
Sandy and the repair that is needed and the infrastructure with
something called the REINS Act, which, as I said earlier, goes around
and around and around.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to point out to the House that the assertion that this
does not prevent a filibuster in the Senate is incorrect. If Members
would examine pages 12 through 14 of the bill, they will see multiple
ways in which procedural motions and substantive motions in the Senate
are barred from undertaking a filibuster, and they must proceed through
those points of order and other objections that might be raised to a
final vote on this regulation under the REINS Act.
This is a good thing because it will allow for expeditious
consideration by the Congress of regulations. Whether they are needed
or not needed, they ought to be considered by the Congress, especially
if they cost more than $100 million to the American economy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman pointed us out
to pages 12 to 14, because he indicated a number of procedural hula
hoops that we have to jump through. Each of those procedural hula hoops
will be subject to a filibuster.
But this is what the American people go through: Here is a tornado or
an earthquake, here is Hurricane Sandy. There are a variety of issues
that it results in. Here is a wildfire.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this amendment. There
are a whole lot of opportunities for the people of west Tennessee to
benefit from it.
We are an area that has been known to have tornados; we have the
potential for an earthquake from Reelfoot Lake. FEMA comes under this,
and to stop FEMA from having proper regulations that could protect the
public would be a serious mistake. It is important that we safeguard
our citizens, particularly when they are victims of natural tragedies.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman.
I would like to ask my colleagues to be sensible and realize that you
cannot control the other body.
This amendment is a sensible amendment that responds to the outcry of
wildfires, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes. The American people are
looking for the Department of Homeland Security to be able to focus on
the infrastructure repair, the regulatory scheme and structure to
respond to an emergency.
This bill does not deal with emergencies. It deals with an elongated
process that, unfortunately, will drown, if you will, the people with a
regulatory structure that does not provide them with the relief that
first responders need or the people need.
I ask my colleagues of this House to be sensible and vote for the
Jackson Lee amendment.
My amendment would exempt from the bill's Congressional approval
requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland
Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking
Member of the Border and Maritime 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

[[Page H5328]]

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 USCERT 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.
The Department of Homeland Security is also tasked with combating
terrorism, and protecting Americans from threats. With the current
unrest in the Middle East, why would we want to limit DHS's ability to
do its job?

The Department of Homeland Security is constantly responding to new
intelligence and threats from the volatile Middle East and around the
globe. We must not tie the hands of those trusted to protect us from
these threats.
Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations
puts the entire country at risk. 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 2011, 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.
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 life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of
Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and would just say in opposition to this amendment again, Members only
need to look to the bill itself to see that the process in the Senate
will not tolerate filibusters at any point in the process from start to
finish.
Let me also point out that the American people care very much about
how disasters are handled, and so do elected representatives of the
American people. But we are talking about regulations written by the
agency that cost more than $100 million.
Those regulations, if they are written wrong--and many people would
suggest that the Department of Homeland Security has gotten it wrong
many times with regulations from the TSA, for example--those
regulations should come back to this Congress for review. The American
people have the first and foremost place to look for leadership on
these issues in the Congress of the United States, the people's House,
and the United States Senate, and not to government regulatory
agencies.
Yes, they need to write regulations, but they shouldn't have the
final say, particularly on the most expensive regulations affecting our
economy.
Money that is diverted--money that is diverted--to pay for
unnecessary regulations is money that can't be spent to address other
problems that we have in this country or to pay down our national debt.
That's what is important, and that's why this amendment should be
defeated.
We need to have common sense brought to our regulatory process. The
REINS Act does it. The REINS Act reins in unnecessary burdensome
regulations, it helps protect American jobs, and it ought to be
protected, and that includes protected from unnecessary or burdensome
regulations in the Department of Homeland Security.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. McKinley

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 20, line 16, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert
``$50,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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, this bill currently requires that all
regulations that cost $100 million or more must first be approved by
Congress.

{time} 2030

Therefore, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce that
threshold from $100 million to $50 million. This would ensure greater
transparency and more accountability in the process. Let's put this in
perspective, Mr. Chairman.
For the past 2 years, according to the regulators, of all of the
regulations individually that have exceeded $100 million, only 2
percent have been reviewed. That means 98 percent of all of the
regulations that we have faced in America have not had the involvement
of Congress. I mean, who would be satisfied if only 2 percent of our
food that we eat has been inspected? Who would be satisfied if only 2
percent of the planes that we fly in are inspected--or of our homes?
businesses? The Obama administration and its overly aggressive
bureaucrats are playing with people's lives.
Last weekend, I was at a Serbian picnic in northern West Virginia,
and I was approached by two adult males who were very concerned. Mr.
Chairman, their eyes welled up with fear and concern because of all of
these regulations that are being imposed on them.

[[Page H5329]]

They fear whether they're going to have jobs because of all of these
regulations which no one is overseeing. These men love to work and they
want to work, but they feel these new regulations threaten their
American Dream and are taking away the possibility for them to raise
their families. Each of us knows men like them. They live in our
neighborhoods. Whenever we go home, we see these people. They want to
work, but they're afraid of someone moving the goalpost with a new
regulation that's not checked by Congress.
Every year, these regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars
annually, and 98 percent of them are implemented without congressional
oversight. According to the Small Business Administration, the
cumulative burden of regulations exceeds more than $1 trillion annually
out of our economy. Let me say this again: nearly 98 percent of all new
regulations have no economic analysis or oversight by the American
public. According to the GAO, Federal regulators last year, Mr.
Chairman, issued 2,500 new regulations--just in 1 year alone.
Doesn't this administration understand that excessive, unchecked
regulations harm working families?
Just because the administration can issue a regulation doesn't mean
that it should. By reducing the threshold from $100 million to $50
million, we provide Congress an opportunity to rein in these out-of-
control agencies and allow more of our people to continue working and
supporting their families.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I share in my colleague's
desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to regulations with high
economic impacts, and I know that recent major regulations have hit
West Virginia and the gentleman's constituents particularly hard.
The Environmental Protection Agency's regulations that affect energy
sources and power production are among the most troubling. The $100
million threshold for major regulations in the bill is consistent with
definitions that have been used by Presidential administrations of both
parties since at least the 1990s. However, regulations with a $50
million impact in today's economy will hit America's job creators and
families too hard. This is particularly true of small businesses and
the families that depend on them on Main Streets throughout the Nation.
As a result, the amendment would make sure that Congress is accountable
for regulatory decisions of this magnitude, which impose harm on an
economy that can ill afford it.
Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in doing so.
Mr. COHEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is twice as bad as the bill
because it decreases by $50 million the threshold, which means more and
more regulations would have to go through this cumbersome process and
really stifle regulations and rules, and that's what this is about.
The Speaker said that the job of this Congress is not to pass
legislation but to repeal legislation. That's what these bills are
about. They're not to improve the lives of Americans by having more
safety and more protection but, rather, to defeat proposals that may
come from the EPA, which are to protect the air and the water and our
Earth, as well as to protect other areas of safety, whether it's
automobiles or airplanes or trains or trucks or whatever.
The fact is that this would make it almost impossible to pass a rule
or a regulation, and it would allow one House the ability to kill a
regulation. This is a House that doesn't have the expertise within it,
which has been said by some of the Members in their saying they didn't
know how big to build a dam or whatever. That's why we have government
people who study and do research and promulgate rules and regulations--
to protect us--and it's done in a nonpolitical environment. If you
bring it to this environment, you're going to have lobbyists coming up,
trying to kill things that affect their industries.
This is a yo-yo bill: you are on your own. That's what they're saying
basically, that we don't want protections for consumers or protections
for citizens. We want to have something laissez-faire: no rules and
regulations. You're out there on your own.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Houston,
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with my good friend who has offered
this amendment, which is even more extreme.
I proceeded to read the sections that my good chairman referred me to
on how expeditious this process would be in the United States Senate.
It's unworkable. How does anyone think that the Senate is going to pass
this bill? They've never passed it because what it says is that you're
going to kick the resolution out of committee, that you're going to
discharge it, and then you're going to move it beyond all of their
rules. You're literally abolishing the Senate's rules that they have
not redone themselves. They never got an agreement on ending a
filibuster, so I have no idea as to issues of security and safety as it
relates to homeland security or of the issues dealing with fuel and
greenhouse gases, which have decidedly impacted positively the American
people as it relates to emissions.

Now we're going from $100 million to $50 million, which, I hate to
say, in a country of this size means that we are going to multiply the
number of resolutions on this body that has really been slow in the
passing of any legislation. Then we are going to move to the Senate,
and we are going to tell the Senate committees, If you don't act in 15
days, we're discharging this. Then we will expect the Senate to pass
this bill, which is the only way that it's going to get to the
President's desk.
I might also say to my good friend from Tennessee, over and over
again, we keep talking about what President Obama's administration has
done. If this is about President Obama, that's one thing. If this is
about creating jobs, the President has offered the American Jobs Act,
and we have introduced a bill that has been calculated to have helped
create jobs and stop the bleeding of the economy.
I am glad my good friend talked about the success of the Dow. That
translates into jobs if we get rid of the sequester. There is a bill
that will get rid of it, H.R. 900, offered by Mr. Conyers, which many
of us have cosponsored. Where is the debate on the floor of the House
of that?
I would simply say that we are now going from the extreme to the very
extreme, and you're going to see a pounding of regulations. Moms and
dads and children--families--municipalities, places need clean air,
clean water. They need better emissions to the extent that it helps
with clean air. They need safety. They need security. Now we are going
to pile it up with those that may cost $50 million.
How absurd is that in terms of the legislative schedule of this place
and the legislative schedule of the United States Senate? Now, I'm not
saying anyone is going to shuck off any work--we welcome that--but you
have the regular order of legislation. Then every time an amendment
comes up--now $50 million--then you're going to say that this must kick
in.
I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment because it simply will
not work.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Webster of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, 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 21, beginning on line 4, strike ``except that such
term does not include--'' and all that follows through line
18, and insert the

[[Page H5330]]

following: ``except that such term does not include 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.''

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Webster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, this amendment is straightforward.
It closes a regulatory loophole that allows Federal agencies to make
major policy changes without appropriate congressional review.
As currently written, the REINS Act covers agency rules developed
through the formal notice and comment rule-making process, but that's
not enough. By removing two exceptions from the definition of ``rule,''
we ensure that agency actions that serve a regulatory purpose are
subject to the $100 million threshold.
The current administration circumvents congressional oversight and
public input by issuing general statements of policy known as
``guidance documents'' in order to achieve its intrusive regulatory
agenda. This tactic shields major and costly policy changes from any
congressional oversight laws put in place to protect citizens. Let me
give you two examples.
The EPA used a guidance document to remove the word ``navigable''
from the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' This would
expand its jurisdiction to potentially regulate traditional State
waters and roadside ditches that hold water after rainfall. The EPA
estimates that this guidance document could cost Americans $171 million
annually. Last month, we all know the administration used a guidance
document to delay the health care law's employer coverage mandate. The
CBO estimates this guidance document will cost $12 billion.
Both of these guidance documents make substantive changes to policy
without congressional review. Under the REINS Act as currently drafted,
these costly guidance documents would escape the disapproval process
even though they breach the $100 million threshold established by
REINS.
Good policy does not have to be hidden within the cloak of
bureaucratic power grabbing. My amendment seeks to shine light into the
dark corner of regulatory infrastructure that is abused by those with
an agenda that must be hidden from view. It simply allows elected
Representatives the opportunity to review policy changes issued through
internal guidance that exceed the $100 million threshold. Hardworking
taxpayers are owed a choice and a voice through their elected
Representatives in all major policy changes that impact their jobs and
their pocketbooks. This amendment secures this fundamental measure of
government, accountability, and respect for taxpayers.
By requiring a vote of Congress in all substantive agency rules, the
REINS Act results in more clearly written legislation; it improves the
regulatory process; and it holds government accountable to the American
people for the laws imposed upon them.
I urge my colleagues to support the Webster amendment and strengthen
the REINS Act by closing this guidance document loophole, which erodes
the rule of law.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2045

Mr. COHEN. In what I'm sure is no surprise to the Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Once again, this just takes it to another level. It's not
just the rules, but then the rules of the rules.
Really what this bill is about is a messaging opportunity. We're
supposed to be legislating. The reality is that we don't legislate in
Congress; we message. One side says, We're for business. We're against
regulations. We're against rules. We want to create enterprise by
destroying rules and regulations. The other side, which is my side,
says, We're for consumers. We're for safety. We're for protection.
We're for health and clean water and clear air. We think that the
government process works because it saves people; it saves their lives.
We go back and forth.
This would effectively destroy the opportunity to have rules and
regulations passed at all. It's not going to get through the Senate, so
what it is is a messaging opportunity for us to fill up C-SPAN. It's
unfortunate because we should be legislating about jobs and about the
sequester. We ought to be talking about benefits that the government
does provide, but right now sequestration is taking away important jobs
in the Defense Department, moneys from the National Institutes of
Health, which would protect people's lives in the long run with
treatments and cures that we need, and the next generation will benefit
greater than us; yet we're here talking about something that is not
going to happen.
It is really unfortunate, because we should be legislating, and this
bill just gets us into the weeds, gets us down into the regulations.
It's like we're going to strangle the ``bureaucrats.'' But the
bureaucrats are the experts who come up with the safety provisions that
say your children's toys are going to be safe and your car is going to
have brakes and work in the proper manner and your airplane is not
going to fall out of the sky when it's not near the airport.
Those are important things to the American people, and if you don't
have rules and regulations by experts that can be implemented, we're
going to have a lot of accidents. That's why this is a very bad bill
and a bad amendment and a bad use of the public's time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and
I'm going to support his amendment.
I share my colleagues's desire to curb the abuse of agency guidance
documents and other agency directives, statements, and actions that too
often have escaped adequate congressional scrutiny.
The amendment brings within the scope of the Congressional Review Act
and the REINS Act rules of agency practice, procedure, and management
that could be abused but otherwise would escape a congressional check
and balance. It is a measured first step in reining in agency excess,
and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future to see
if we can identify additional ways to rein in abusive agency practices
and guidance.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time so we
can get to the next program on C-SPAN quicker.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I just want to remind everyone that we all remember what happened on
July 3 when there was an announcement made that all of the sudden we
were going to basically reverse our decision on the Affordable Care Act
passed by this Congress. I would not have voted for it had I been here.
With one stroke of the pen on a guidance document, they were able to
thwart the law that we passed.
We talk about this body is for legislating? Yes, it is. When it does,
we expect the executive branch to enforce that law, which it didn't;
and it didn't because it was able to use that guidance document to
change the law. It's not right. Vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Moore

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, 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 23, line 19, insert after ``determines.'' the
following (and amend the table of sections accordingly):

``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
2013 shall

[[Page H5331]]

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 2013, shall continue to apply, after such
enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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 rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
367, the REINS Act, and I yield myself 3 minutes of my time.
Today's REINS Act would require a joint resolution approval of
Congress every time the executive branch promulgates a major rule. My
amendment would simply exempt our Nation's veterans from the burdensome
layers and hurdles that H.R. 367 will add to the administration's
rulemaking process.
I oppose the underlying bill because it will severely restrict agency
or department action when many vulnerable veterans need help. It is
just simply unacceptable every single time our Nation's veterans are
held hostage by the gridlock we experience in Congress. This is yet
another moment. This amendment offers an opportunity to exempt them
from that.
Mr. Chairman, just a few little facts:
Today's veterans need help more than ever, and they really deserve
it. Unfortunately, over 3,000 Active Duty troops have taken their lives
since 2011. We have an estimated 22 veteran suicides per day. We've had
over 2 million Active Duty soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan,
many of whom are struggling to transition and trying to find
employment. While the VA has made some progress in recent months, Mr.
Chairman, the backlog of over 500,000 claims--those older than 125
days--is simply unacceptable.
Some veterans have had to wait up to 2 years for an administrative
decision on a claim, and we're adding more administrative requirements
for them. We're gravely concerned, all of us are here, on a bipartisan
basis, about the growing backlog of appeals pending with the VA as
resources are shifted. The amount of claims waiting to be heard by the
Board of Veterans Affairs is currently over 45,000 and estimated to
increase to approximately 102,000 by 2017. The average length of an
appeal completed in fiscal year 2012 was 903 days, Mr. Chairman. Adding
hurdles now will do nothing but curtail options available to the
administration as it works toward solving these serious problems.
I appeal to the common sense and compassion for veterans of my
colleagues. My amendment is simple. Veterans deserve to be left out of
this political fight.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the statistics about the delays in poor
performance at the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to
veterans' claims are reasons to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. The
amendment carves out of the REINS act congressional approval procedures
all regulations that affect veterans and Veterans Affairs.
We want to guarantee that the regulatory decisions that affect them
are the best decisions. That's why major regulations that affect
veterans and Veterans Affairs, like all other major regulations, should
fall within the REINS Act. Under the legislation, agencies with
authority over veterans' issues will know that Congress must approve
their major regulations before they go into effect.
That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best
possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. Congress
will have every incentive to approve good regulations and every
incentive to disapprove regulations that have led to the kind of delays
and uncertainty that veterans face today.
That's a solution that everyone should be able to support. Congress
will be more accountable, agencies will write better rules, and
veterans and all Americans will reap the benefit.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'm sure my colleague agrees with me that we should not add hurdles.
We've passed 11 bills since September on behalf of veterans, including
the following kinds of initiatives: the 9/11 GI Bill, which we all
agreed upon; copayments for medication; and resources for radiation
poisoning. Had we had this bill in place, each and every one of these
initiatives would have required a joint resolution from Congress each
time the VA promulgated these rules.
If those sessions of Congress were anything like the majority's
calendar for this year, we would not have had a lot of time to have
completed work. This year we've only passed 15 bills into law. That's a
record low compared to last year. As the Speaker just recently said--I
suppose it would apply here--we should not be judged on how many laws
we create; we should be judged on how many laws we repeal. Certainly,
we would not have been able to do things like the GI Bill or reduce
copayments for medications for veterans had we had this bill in place.
The other thing is you would think that my colleagues would have some
pride in this institution. All this bill will do is put much more power
within the hands of the executive. We can't appoint bureaucrats to
conference committees on the budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Disabled American Veterans National Service & Legislative
Headquarters,
Washington, DC, July 31, 2013.
Hon. Gwen Moore,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Moore: On behalf of DAV (Disabled
American Veterans), an organization of 1.2 million wartime
wounded, injured, and ill veterans, I am writing with respect
to your proposed amendment to H.R. 367, the Regulations from
the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, or the
``REIN'' Act.
Your proposed amendment, if accepted, would exempt veterans
and veterans affairs from the requirements of the bill that
all proposed federal rules that convey a cost of $100 million
or more, or that are subject to other circumstances described
in the bill, be submitted to Congress before promulgation by
the Executive Branch. Under the bill, Congress would require
itself to mandatorily act to approve or disapprove any such
regulation through fixed rules of procedure and calendars.
Your effort to protect veterans to ensure their benefits
and services are provided in an expeditious manner, as
proposed by an Executive Branch agency, is deeply
appreciated. Under the DAV Constitution and By-Laws, any
federal legislation or policy that furthers the interests of
wounded and injured veterans carries DAV's strong support.
While endorsing your specific amendment, DAV takes no
position on the underlying bill itself, because our
membership has not approved a resolution specific to the
purpose of Congress generally limiting government regulation-
making across the vast federal landscape.
Thank you for proposing your amendment, and please advise
me how DAV can aid you in gaining its acceptance by the House
as it concludes consideration of the REIN Act.
Sincerely,
Barry A. Jesinoski,
Executive Director, Washington Headquarters.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I say to the gentlewoman, my colleague from Wisconsin, that this
House is very proud of the fact that we worked in a bipartisan fashion
to pass all of those bills. I have absolutely no doubt that if, after
we pass those bills, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other
agencies affecting veterans didn't do the work properly and didn't get
it done right that this Congress would again work in a very bipartisan
fashion to say, No, you didn't get it right. Get it right.
That's what this is all about. That's why the REINS Act is important.
It's not just for every other American, but also for veterans. This is
something that will improve the regulatory process.
There is another study that talks about the creation of jobs, which
are important to our veterans who have returned and are looking for
employment in this country. This is a study by the Phoenix Center, and
it's entitled, ``Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An
Empirical Study.'' It was performed by three Ph.D.'s and a lawyer. What
could be better than that? I want to read from part of the abstract. It
says:

[[Page H5332]]

Even a small 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget,
about $2.8 billion, is estimated to result in about $75
billion in expanded private sector GDP each year with an
increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On
average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the
American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private
sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million-dollar
increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420
private sector jobs.

This is a study that shows conclusively that we're right when we say
that the REINS Act will help to create jobs in this country and the
current regulatory morass that we're facing in this country is costing
American jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to
support the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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.

{time} 2100

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Cramer) having assumed the chair, Mr. Conaway, 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. 367) 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, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________