[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8545-H5564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 427.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 380 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 427.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
[[Page H8546]]
{time} 1412
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 427) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or
effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, with
Mr. Marchant in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Regulatory reform plays a critical role in ensuring that our Nation
finally achieves a full economic recovery and retains its competitive
edge in the global marketplace. Congress must advance progrowth
policies that create jobs and restore economic prosperity for families
and businesses across the Nation, and it must make sure that the
administration and its regulatory apparatus are held accountable to the
American people.
America's small-business owners are suffering under mountains of
endlessly growing, bureaucratic red tape; and the uncertainty about the
cost of upcoming regulations discourages employers from hiring new
employees and expanding their businesses. Excessive regulation means
higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less economic growth, and a
less competitive America.
Today, Americans face a burden of over $3 trillion from Federal
taxation and regulation. In fact, our Federal regulatory burden is
larger than the 2014 gross domestic product of all but the top nine
countries in the world. That burden adds up to $15,000 per American
household, nearly 30 percent of the average household income in 2014.
{time} 1415
Everyone knows it has been this way for far too long. But the Obama
administration, instead of fixing the problem, knows only one response:
increase taxes, increase spending, and increase regulation.
The results have painfully demonstrated a simple truth: America
cannot tax, spend, and regulate its way to economic recovery, economic
growth, and durable prosperity for the American people.
Consider just a few facts that reveal the economic weakness the Obama
administration has produced. In the June 2015 jobs report, the number
of unemployed workers, workers who can only find part-time jobs and
workers who are now only marginally attached to the labor force, stood
at 10.8 percent. They number over 16 million Americans.
America's labor force participation rate remains at lows not seen
since the Carter administration, and the median household income still
is below the level achieved before the financial crisis.
The contrast between America's current condition and the recovery
Ronald Reagan achieved is particularly stark.
Four-and-a-half years after the recession began in 1981 the Reagan
administration, through policies opposite to the Obama
administration's, had achieved a recovery that created 7.8 million more
jobs than when the recession began. Real per capita gross domestic
product rose by $3,091. Real median household income rose by 7.7
percent.
To truly fix America's problems, the REINS Act is one of the
simplest, clearest, and most powerful measures we can adopt. The level
of new major regulation the Obama administration has issued and plans
to issue is without modern precedent.
Testimony before the Judiciary Committee during recent Congresses has
plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation
and declining levels of jobs and growth.
The REINS Act responds by requiring an up-or-down vote by the
people's representatives in Congress before any new major regulation--
defined in the bill generally as a rule that has an effect on the
economy of at least $100 million--can be imposed on our economy.
It does not prohibit new major regulation. It simply establishes the
principle ``No major regulation without representation.''
By requiring Congress, which is more directly accountable to the
American people, to approve or deny major regulations proposed by the
administration, the REINS Act provides Congress and, ultimately, the
people with a much-needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet that
Washington's regulatory bureaucrats too often turn.
During the 113th and 112th Congresses, the REINS Act was passed by
the full House of Representatives multiple times, each time on a
bipartisan vote.
I thank Mr. Young of Indiana for introducing this legislation. I urge
all of my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 15, 2015, the Committee on the
Judiciary ordered H.R. 427, the ``Regulations From the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015,'' reported to the
House. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted an
additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to
the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives over the rules of the House and
special orders of business.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive
its jurisdiction over H.R. 427. In addition, the Committee
reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of
the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I
ask your commitment to support any request by the Rules
Committee for conferees on H.R. 427 or related legislation.
I also request that you include our exchange of letters on
this matter in the committee report to accompany H.R. 427 and
in the Congressional Record during consideration of this
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions.
____
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on the Rules, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sessions, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 427, the ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny Act of 2015,'' which the Judiciary Committee ordered
reported favorably, as amended, to the House on April 15,
2015.
As you noted, the Committee on Rules was granted an
additional referral of the bill. I am most appreciative of
your decision to forego further consideration of H.R. 427 so
that it may proceed to the House floor. I acknowledge that
although you are waiving formal consideration of the bill,
the Committee on the Rules is in no way waiving its
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those
provisions of the bill that fall within your Rule X
jurisdiction. In addition, if a conference is necessary on
this legislation, I will support any request that your
committee be represented therein.
Finally, I am pleased to include this letter and your
letter in our committee's report as well as the Congressional
Record during floor consideration of H.R. 427.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
Committee on the Budget,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte, I am writing concerning H.R. 427,
the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2015, which the Committee on the Judiciary ordered reported
on April 15, 2015.
The bill amends section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by providing that
any rules which affect budget authority, outlays, or receipts
that are subject to the congressional approval procedure
outlined in section 802 of chapter 8 of title 5, U.S.C., are
effective unless it is disapproved in accordance with such
section. In order to expedite House consideration of H.R.
427, the Committee will forgo action on the bill. This is
being done with the understanding that it does not in any way
prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of
conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or
similar legislation.
[[Page H8547]]
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 427 and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Price, M.D.,
Chairman,
Committee on the Budget.
____
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2015.
Hon. Tom Price,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Price, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 427, the ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny Act of 2015,'' which the Judiciary Committee ordered
reported favorably, as amended, to the House on April 15,
2015.
As you noted, the Committee on the Budget was granted an
additional referral of the bill. I am most appreciative of
your decision to forego further consideration of H.R. 427 so
that it may proceed to the House floor. I acknowledge that
although you are waiving formal consideration of the bill,
the Committee on the Budget is in no way waiving its
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those
provisions of the bill that fall within your Rule X
jurisdiction. In addition, if a conference is necessary on
this legislation, I will support any request that your
committee be represented therein.
Finally, I am pleased to include this letter and your
letter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration
of H.R. 427.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume and rise in opposition to H.R. 427.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny Act of 2015, otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend the
Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass
and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70
legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take
effect.
Additionally, H.R. 427 imposes deadlines for the enactment of a joint
resolution approving a major rule that could charitably be referred to
as Byzantine.
Under new section 802, the House may only consider a major rule on
the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Last year there were only
13 such days on the legislative calendar compared to the 80 major rules
adopted in 2014.
Furthermore, under new section 801, Congress may only consider such
resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This
process would constructively end rulemaking as we know it.
Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the
aisle contend that we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation,
which would result in the passage of no new regulations, is because
these new regulations are stifling economic growth.
They point to the Obama administration and say that it is because of
regulations enacted or promulgated and placed into operation under the
Obama administration that has caused our economy to be at a point where
they are saying we are not as economically vital as it should be.
What they are failing to tell the American people is that it was the
George Bush Republican economic policies of the first part of this
century that led to the Great Recession, the economic meltdown, the
fact that there were not regulations that prohibited predatory lending,
and other economic policies which contributed to the economic meltdown.
They won't tell you it was because of the lack of regulation that
caused that.
But, indeed, if you go back and talk to Alan Greenspan, who chaired
the Federal Reserve and was a big antiregulatory capitalist, he had to
come back after the Great Recession and admit that he was wrong.
His policies were those that contributed to the economic meltdown,
which, despite horrendous opposition from the opposite side of the
aisle against the policies of Democrats and President Obama, they tried
to obstruct those changes. But they were enacted and, as a result,
America's economic recovery has been quite notable.
Corporate profits are up. Even though productivity is up and wages
are steady, workers have not participated in the upswing in this
election, even though jobs have been created for the last 65 straight
months under the Obama administration.
But the wage growth has been stagnant, and it is because of the
trickle-down Republican policies that have caused this. Now they want
to blame the lack of monies in the pocketbooks and pockets of
Americans, working people, on regulations.
Even if agencies reduce the number of major rules in contemplation of
the bill's onerous requirements, Congress would still lack the
expertise and policy justifications for refusing to adopt a major rule.
As over 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and
administrative law have noted in a letter to the Judiciary Committee
earlier this year, without this expertise, any disapproval is,
therefore, more likely to reflect the political power of special
interests, a potential that would be magnified in light of the fast-
track process.
Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that
Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act
likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of
article I of the Constitution.
As Professor Ron Levin, a leading expert on administrative law, noted
during the hearing on the REINS Act last Congress:
``The reality is that the act is intended to enable a single House of
Congress to control the implementation of the laws through the
rulemaking process. Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of
separation of powers, under which the Constitution entrusts the writing
of the laws to the legislative branch and the implementation of the
laws to the executive branch.''
Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted in the landmark case INS v. Chada:
``The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in
the supervision of officers charged with the execution of laws it
enacts.''
The court also clarified that it was profound conviction of the
Framers that the powers conferred on Congress were the powers to be
most carefully circumscribed. By providing that no law could take
effect without the concurrence of the prescribed majority of both
Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief that legislation should
not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the
Nation's elected officials.
It defies credulity that so many of my Republican colleagues who so
strongly oppose crony capitalism and hold the Framers' intent so dearly
would support H.R. 427, which is a bald attempt by corporations and
special interests to shield themselves from any oversight and, in the
process, shred article I of the Constitution.
Furthermore, Speaker Boehner has also said that the Republican-led,
do-nothing Congress, the most ineffective in modern history--and I will
note that we are getting ready to adjourn tomorrow, a day early, for a
6-week adjournment with all of the work that remains for Congress to
do.
Speaker Boehner also said that the Republican-led, do-nothing
Congress, the most ineffective in modern history, should be judged by
the number of laws it repeals, not the number of laws that it passes.
It therefore follows that this obstruct-at-any-cost approach would
carry over to blocking the most critical agency rulemaking, thereby
threatening agencies' ability to protect Americans' health, safety,
well-being, and economic growth.
Who stands to gain from Republican obstructionism? Corporate giants
that are holding our country hostage through a deregulatory agenda and
political influence that would rival the industrial monopolies from the
past century.
Unsurprisingly, it is many of the same corporations that are
continuing to show record profit margins that are also pushing
deregulation and fewer taxes because they have an ``obsession with
short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation,''
according to Henry Blodget, the CEO of Business Insider.
Unquestionably, H.R. 427 would be nothing short of a catastrophic
event for the everyday Americans who stand to lose the most from the
majority's myopic and reckless treatment of our Nation's regulatory
system.
Mr. Chair, we need real solutions to help real people, not yet
another thinly
[[Page H5548]]
veiled handout to large corporations, not another messaging bill to
take back to the district over the August recess.
We need legislation that creates middle class security and
opportunity, and we need sensible regulations that protect American
families from financial ruin, that encourage competition, that bring
predatory financial practices to an end, legislation that brings the
United States into conformity with the rest of the developed world's
employment policies by guaranteeing paid sick and parental leave,
legislation that increases our global competitiveness by creating an
affordable higher education, and legislation that increases the minimum
wage from a paltry $7.25 an hour.
I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose
H.R. 427, yet another deregulatory bill in the majority's business-
focused, crony capitalist agenda.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have to agree with my friend
from Georgia. I agree with him on his statement that this
administration's recovery has been amazing. It has been amazingly bad.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the
majority whip.
{time} 1430
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, if you look at what is happening in our
economy right now, why the economy is struggling so badly through this
Obama economy, it is because of radical regulations coming out of
Washington.
Every time I go home and meet with small businesses in my district in
southeast Louisiana, the common thread is that it is not the local
business down the street that is the main threat to their business.
The main threat to small businesses throughout my district--and I
hear it from my colleagues as well across the country--are the
thousands and thousands of pages of these radical regulations that come
out of these Federal agencies, unelected bureaucrats that are imposing,
in essence, new law that is making it harder to create jobs in this
country.
Hard-working taxpayers deserve a Federal Government that is more
efficient, more effective, and more accountable; and that is what the
REINS Act does, Mr. Chairman. The REINS Act forces real accountability
in regulations that are coming out of Washington.
Whether it is the IRS or the EPA or the NLRB or HHS or CMS, the
alphabet soup of Federal agencies that is crippling our economy with
all of these regulations is what is holding our economy back.
Why not have a mechanism that says, if a rule is being proposed by a
Federal agency by an unelected bureaucrat that is so important that it
is going to have a major impact on our economy, shouldn't it at least
go through the transparency of coming before the elected
representatives of the people, Mr. Chairman?
Why not have these conversations on C-SPAN, not in the dark annals of
some Federal bureaucratic agency in Washington, some unelected
bureaucrat that is going to wake up one morning and say they are going
to create a new law that is going to devastate our economy?
Shouldn't that at least go through public hearings? Shouldn't it have
to be passed by the elected people in Congress who will be held
accountable every 2 years for the consequences of those regulations?
Let's stop crippling our economy. Let's stop holding our economy back
with these radical regulations, Mr. Chairman. Let's pass the REINS Act
and bring real accountability into the process of creating regulations
in Washington.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
bill. The REINS Act would create new obstacles to the promulgation of
regulations designed to protect American workers' health and safety and
to protect the environment.
It would jeopardize the economy by impeding regulations for financial
services and throw sand in the gears of government efforts to address
growing inequality and prevent discrimination.
Congress already has the right to disapprove any rule through the
Congressional Review Act or through appropriations bills or other
legislation. This bill would essentially impose a procedural chokehold
by requiring that any major rule receive affirmative House and Senate
approval within 70 legislative days.
As an example of the effect of this bill, we note that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is in the process
of updating a nearly 70-year-old standard to keep workers from
contracting a progressive and frequently fatal lung disease called
chronic beryllium disease.
In the 1940s, workers at the Atomic Energy Commission plants were
contracting acute beryllium poisoning. To deal with the problem, two of
their scientists sitting in the back of a taxicab on the way to a
meeting agreed to set the beryllium exposure limit at 2 micrograms per
cubic meter of air. Established back in 1948, that standard is still in
place today and is often called ``the taxicab standard'' because there
was no data supporting that number.
In 1975, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
advised OSHA to issue a new, more stringent protective standard. That
effort faltered. Now, one cost of inaction is an estimated loss of 100
lives per year each year this new standard is delayed.
Another is the fact that we have to pay over $300 million in Federal
compensation to workers and their survivors who have contracted chronic
beryllium disease and who are employed by the Energy Department's
contractors and vendors.
Today, over 100,000 workers are exposed to beryllium, and workers in
my district are not alone in asking the government to be on their side.
There is substantial stakeholder support from beryllium producers and
labor representatives to cut the standard exposure limit by 90 percent.
Over the last 17 years, OSHA has worked to update that standard,
based on numerous scientific studies and expert recommendations, and
now, the new standard is working its way slowly through the regulatory
process; and under the present laws and procedures, it still might be
another year or two before the final rule is promulgated.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that this nearly 70-year-old
standard fails to protect workers, there are still a few who object. By
requiring a bicameral resolution of approval prior to the rule ever
taking effect, this legislation will make it easier for a well-funded
special interest group to block needed workplace protections.
The underlying bill does nothing but prioritize special interests
above the protection of lives and limbs of American workers. I,
therefore, urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the author of this piece of
legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the leader
and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing H.R. 427 to the floor today.
I introduced the REINS Act because people in my home State of Indiana
want to hold someone--someone--accountable for the job-killing rules
and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C.
Each day, government agencies impose an average of 10 new regulations
on America's businesses, both big and small. It is no surprise to
discover that the costly, confusing government regulations that come
out of this body--ObamaCare mandates, EPA regulations, or IRS tax
penalties--are exciting some feedback from my constituents.
In fact, the collateral damage wrought by Federal Government
regulations is consistently cited as one of the biggest barriers to
business creation and expansion and growth in household income in this
country.
One Indiana businessowner, who employs 16 family men and women in
Floyd County, recently called my office. He wanted to know who had
voted in support of a peculiar new IRS rule that is going to penalize
him if he helps his employees pay for health insurance.
Now, this IRS rule can cost employers more than $36,000 per employee
per year if they continue to offend the sensibilities of Washington's
regulating
[[Page H5549]]
class by reimbursing workers for healthcare coverage.
As the son of a small-business owner and someone who hears a lot from
local businesses back in Indiana about their challenges, about their
opportunities, I know how costly regulations impact the small company's
bottom line.
While this broad, new IRS rule will undoubtedly have a major impact
on smaller enterprises across the Nation, it was written by unelected,
unaccountable regulators here in Washington, D.C. It never came before
Congress for an up-or-down vote.
That is what the REINS Act is all about. It is about holding
officials at Federal agencies and the Congress of the United States
accountable for the harmful regulations drummed up each year,
regulations which are laws in everything but name. They hurt American
jobs and wages when they are implemented, and they need an additional
filter of accountability here in the people's House.
Who should be held responsible, I would ask opponents of this
legislation, for these rules that have a $100 million-plus impact on
our economy if not the people's elected representatives in Congress?
For too long, Congress has delegated much of its constitutional
authority to executive agencies here in Washington, D.C. This has
empowered unelected Federal officials to implement sweeping rules and
regulations that are often ineffective, redundant, counterproductive,
and costly.
Consider the impact of such rules on another business in my home
district in Indiana. It is a local farming operation. When we add up
the impact of county, State, and Federal regulations, these Hoosier
farmers must meet hundreds of reporting requirements dictated by an
alphabet soup of different government agencies--EPA, USDA, HHS, IRS,
NLRB. It goes on and on and on. It is mind numbing, really.
The burden on their operation and its ability to grow and compete has
been punishing. For example, one regulation alone requires them to
treat water left over from cracking eggs like industrial waste. It
costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for this business in
consulting and equipment fees just in compliance costs.
Now, with the EPA assuming broad new authority over bodies of water
in the United States, these farmers are taking more time and resources
away from their farm to track these ill-defined WOTUS regulations
coming down the pike.
Now, America's job creators will tell you the future is uncertain.
Our rulemaking process is out of the people's control. It needs to be
reined in. Wouldn't it make sense for small-business owners and farmers
to have a larger voice, to be given a bigger say in the rulemaking
process, especially when regulations can dictate whether their business
succeeds or fails?
That is exactly what my legislation, the REINS Act, provides. It
gives the job creators and the American people a voice. It injects a
measure of accountability back into the democratic process. The REINS
Act requires that Congress must approve any new major rule proposed by
the executive branch before it can be enforced on the American people.
Remember, our small businesses are our Nation's economic engine. They
represent 99.7 percent of all national employers, 56.1 million of our
Nation's private workforce. Small and family-owned businesses, new
startups, and entrepreneurs create two-thirds of all job growth in the
United States.
Meanwhile, small businesses spend an estimated $10,500 per employee
to comply with Federal regulations. It is no wonder that, for the first
time in 35 years, more American companies are being destroyed than they
are being created each year.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Compliance with costly Federal regulations
leads to higher consumer costs, lower take-home pay, and even reduced
hiring.
A businessowner who owns a parts manufacturing company in Wabash,
Indiana, summed it up best. From his standpoint, when it comes to the
vast array of rules and regulations his company must follow, they are
not only onerous; they add zero value to his business, and they put him
at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competition.
We could, frankly, spend a lot more time than today here on the floor
going through each of the different challenges with our Federal
regulation system, but in the end, Congress needs to be forced to
account for the regulations resulting from our sweeping legislation
like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank.
The REINS Act accomplishes this objective. The REINS Act, like the
Hoosiers I represent, demands accountability. I commend it to the
consideration of all my colleagues.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I often hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeat
false information, and it is unfortunate that it would be perpetrated
that economic growth has been hurt because of an explosion of
regulations during the Obama administration.
I will be the first to admit that, with the historic passage of the
Affordable Care Act, which has enabled 16 million Americans to now have
access to the healthcare system--16 million people--it could have been
more if the policies had not been obstructed so much; if we hadn't had
50-plus votes to do away with the Affordable Care Act, we would have
more people having access to the healthcare system in this country, but
bringing that many people into the healthcare system and actually
changing the healthcare system required new regulations, and so people
have been trying, for 75 to 100 years, to establish health care for
everyone in this country.
The Affordable Care Act was the closest that we could come to that
ideal, but it was a transformational bill, and it did require new
regulations to nurture it and to get it to this point, which has been a
complete success, despite all opposition.
{time} 1445
And then we had the Dodd-Frank legislation that was passed as a
result of the Great Recession, which was caused by a lack of
regulation.
So we had regulations that had to come forth as a result of the
passage of that legislation to protect the health, safety, and
financial well-being of everyday Americans. And so with that act having
passed and controls put on excessive speculation in the financial
services industry, we have seen economic growth. That is the bottom
line. We had 64 straight months of private sector job growth. That is
12.8 million private sector jobs created amidst a regulatory system
that is proworker, proenvironment, prohealth and prosafety, and
proinnovation. That is a significant accomplishment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business
Committee and a fighter for small businesses and the families that they
represent.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Before I get into my prepared remarks, I have to respond to my good
friend from Georgia's comments about the Affordable Care Act, which
many have come to start referring to as the ``Unaffordable Care Act''
or ``ObamaCare,'' as most people refer to it.
There certainly was a need to help some of those folks who didn't
have insurance, and there were ways of doing that. By passage of this
legislation, we have adversely, negatively impacted, I think, far more
Americans than we have helped. We have seen Americans' rates go up,
deductibles go up, premiums go up, and they are getting less quality
health care for that. So it has been a disaster for many Americans, and
a lot of it is still unfolding.
And then, on Dodd-Frank, which the gentleman also mentioned, what we
have seen as a result of that--and I happen to be the chair of the
Small Business Committee, as was mentioned--one of small businesses'
greatest challenges is access to capital, getting money so that they
can grow or start a business or grow an existing business and create
more jobs.
Because of Dodd-Frank, we got a whole new army of bureaucrats looking
over the shoulders of banks--and the smaller banks, too, like community
banks, who had nothing to do with this
[[Page H5550]]
so-called economic meltdown. Bureaucrats are looking over the shoulders
of credit unions, making it tougher for them to make loans to small
businesses.
So those two pieces of legislation, which many of my friends on the
other side of the aisle are proud of, I think have been disastrous for
this country.
Getting to this particular piece of legislation, half of America is
employed by small businesses. In fact, 70 percent of the new jobs
created in this economy are created by small businesses. Families rely
on small businesses to put food on the table and a roof over their
heads. They are very critical to the American community and to our
American economy.
There is not a small-business owner I know who thinks that the
government creates job, but they do know that government can keep them
from creating jobs. It does it with one-size-fits-all regulations. It
does it by perpetuating uncertainty and increasing barriers to success.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The REINS Act forces government to think before it acts. It protects
the American people by ensuring that those that they elected get a say
in major regulations--not all regulations, just regulations that would
have a significant impact on the economy.
Some may falsely claim that this bill is about deregulation. It is
not. It is about accountability. It is about making government think
before it acts. And if it chooses to act, the American people can hold
their elected representatives--us--accountable for making that
decision, not some nameless, faceless bureaucracy, but their elected
representatives. That is what this is all about. It is commonsense
legislation.
I commend the gentleman from Indiana for offering this. I also want
to thank the gentleman from Georgia for handling this on the floor
today.
The REINS Act is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I would inquire as to how much time remains
on both sides.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) has 13 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Farenthold), another fighter for his district and those who are
affected by regulation.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution vests all legislative
powers in Congress. Unfortunately, past Members of this institution
have given away a lot of that power to government agencies like the
EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and an alphabet soup
of agencies. President Obama is using his pen and telephone to talk to
the ideologues who work in and run these agencies to change laws, to
make laws without coming to Congress. Unelected, faceless Federal
bureaucrats are making regulations that have the force of law, not
elected representatives of the people.
There are reams of rules. There are so many rules out there, I bet
the average person can't go a couple of hours without violating a rule
or regulation they probably don't even know about.
The REINS Act is a great first step in reining in these job-killing
regulations. The legislation before us is important to America. The
REINS Act brings accountability back to the system.
When a regulation with an economic impact of more than $100 million
comes out of one of these agencies, it has got to be approved by
Congress. That is our job; the Constitution says so, the people who
elected us to make laws. And the people will hold us accountable for
those laws if they are bad laws.
How do you hold a faceless Federal bureaucrat accountable? We have
seen through the VA that it is practically impossible to fire one of
these bureaucrats. But every 2 years you have got the opportunity to
fire somebody in this House, and every 6 years you have the opportunity
to fire somebody on the other side.
Let Congress do the job the Founding Fathers intended. Put the
people's representatives back in charge. Follow the Constitution.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) made a great point when he
was reading through the Supreme Court decision talking about the
constitutional responsibility of this branch of government to make the
laws. That is what the REINS Act does. It gives us back the power.
Another gentleman on the other side spoke about the taxicab standard,
how it came up in a taxicab and how this random regulation has been law
for years. If the REINS Act had been in effect, that would have come
before Congress, and we could have asked the question: Where is the
science behind that?
It would have worked then, and it will work when we pass it now.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
REINS Act.
For far too long, Congress has allowed unelected Federal bureaucrats
to take responsibility for the policymaking in this town. Too often,
these unaccountable individuals in Washington make decisions that
affect the daily lives of western Pennsylvanians with little regard for
how they impact one's livelihood and family.
For instance, we learned a month ago in a Supreme Court decision that
one agency, the EPA, failed to appropriately consider the costs and
benefits of its MATS proposal, which is estimated to cost $9 billion,
with a benefit of only $4 million to $6 million.
Solid, middle class jobs like those in some parts of the energy
industry and in my district are being regulated right out of existence.
More broadly, consider that in 2015, thus far, more than 150
regulations have been finalized, with total costs exceeding $60 billion
and more than 10 million hours of paperwork.
It is this unaccountable culture that hinders the very job creation
and economic growth we need in cities and towns across America that
will provide opportunities for Americans to get back in the game and to
get this country back on track.
There is a bigger issue here, Mr. Chairman, and that is what is
represented in this bill. It goes to the constitutional structure of
our government, where we are supposed to have an executive branch that
is supposed to enforce the law, a legislative branch that makes the
law, and a judicial branch that adjudicates the law.
For close to 100 years, this body has ceded responsibility for making
laws to the executive branch. This bill is a start towards restoring
the proper structure of government and accountability.
When regulations are passed that people don't agree with, there is no
way to hold those regulators accountable; but if Congress had a say,
you could hold Congress accountable. This is what self-government is
all about.
I reflect on 34 years ago, when a certain gentleman spoke on the west
front of this Capitol and had these words to say: ``From time to time
we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be
managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to
government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is
capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to
govern someone else?''
I thank Mr. Young and the committee for its work on the REINS Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a means to restoring the
original, proper constitutional structure of who is responsible for the
laws that come out of this town. You would think that Members of
Congress would want to take credit for good regulations and protect
people from bad regulations. Again, that is what this legislation does.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The economic elites who are the patrons of many of my friends across
the aisle believe in trickle-down economics, which George Herbert
Walker Bush termed to be ``voodoo economics.''
[[Page H5551]]
My friends believe that when you put a quarter in the pocket of a
rich man, there is a hole in that pocket and the quarter trickles down
and falls out into nickles and dimes and is distributed to the waiting
working class people of the country. They believe that is how the
economy works: give the rich the money, let them operate in an
unregulated environment, and then somehow, magically, the economy
trickles down to those waiting at the bottom of the scale waiting for
some kind of a handout.
That is not how our economy works. It works from the ground up. It
works with people going to work, making a decent wage, delivering
services for a period of time--8 hours a day, that is a regulation; 40
hours a week, that is a regulation. We didn't used to have those during
times when people were predominantly poor, and the Nation was poor as a
result; but due to these regulations like the minimum wage, the 40-hour
workweek, the health and safety regulations on the job, we were able to
build a middle class in this country that sustained us up until the
time when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency and established the current
climate of trickle-down economics.
We have seen during that time what has happened is the rich have
gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. The working poor have
had less to work with and the middle class has been squeezed so that
there are not as many working middle class people as there were once
before.
So the REINS Act is a gift to the economic elites who have had their
way with the economy for the last 40 years. They want to stab the heart
of the American economy now by passing this act, the REINS Act, which
would not deregulate, but it would stop all future regulations from
coming to the fore. That is something that America does not need.
So I am going to urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to oppose
this legislation and oppose voodoo economics, oppose trickle-down
economics.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to just say
that the fact of the matter is we are not talking about voodoo
economics here. We are talking about representative democracy.
The American people elect their Representatives from 435
congressional districts; 50 States elect their Senators, and they send
us to Washington, D.C., to write the laws of the land.
The laws that the gentleman referred to were all written by the
United States Congress, signed into law by various Presidents. Then
those laws are turned into regulations, and that is where there is no
more representative democracy.
The bureaucracy that writes the regulations has no accountability.
They write regulations that cost too much, that strangle the job
creation that we both--the gentleman from Georgia and I would like to
see greater job creation and more jobs for the middle class in this
country.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
This bill is about restoring representative democracy to the American
people and fairness to the American people and protecting their economy
and protecting their jobs by making sure that bureaucrats are held
accountable and send those regulations back to the Congress for an up-
or-down vote that, yes, those regulations comport with what the
Congress intended when they wrote the law--or don't comport.
If they comport, they take effect; if they don't, they don't take
effect.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong
support of the REINS Act of 2015.
The gentleman from Georgia said, in opposition to this bill just a
few moments ago, that we should be opposed to it, because ``it would
end rulemaking as we know it.''
What a great statement on why we should vote for the REINS Act
because that is exactly what we are trying to do. We must end
rulemaking as we know it.
I am proud to cosponsor this bill because I know, firsthand, how this
administration's overbearing regulatory policies have devastated my
State, West Virginia; its businesses; its workers; its fundamental way
of life. The people of West Virginia's Third District deserve better.
All West Virginians deserve better. All Americans deserve better.
The Economist recently estimated that Federal regulations cost our
Nation more than $1.8 trillion per year. In West Virginia, for example,
the EPA has implemented sweeping rules and regulations that have driven
out thousands of good-paying jobs, reduced demand for West Virginia
coal, and raised energy prices for all Americans.
This administration is out of touch with our Nation's hard-working
families. This bill, the REINS Act, will protect our communities, small
businesses, and workers from the administration's crushing regulatory
onslaught.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My colleagues have repeatedly argued to the fact that--or to the
allegation that the rate of Federal regulations is growing, but a
recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
reported that the length of the Code of Federal Regulations has no
bearing on the scope or impact of Federal regulation.
In other words, just because the volume of paper is growing, they
want to argue that this means that there is an onslaught, an explosion
of Federal regulations.
As I pointed out earlier, yes, there have been new regulations having
to do with Dodd-Frank, which protects us from another economic meltdown
that we suffered under the Bush administration, and also the Affordable
Care Act, which has enabled 16 million Americans to have access to the
healthcare system who did not have it prior to the passage of the
Affordable Care Act.
This argument that regulations are killing us is nonfactual.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker remaining, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I will close and just say that this debate has been about whether or
not we need a law that would stop Federal rulemaking in its tracks.
This debate has been about whether or not, as we move forward into
the future, as society advances, as technology takes us to places where
we have never been before, as medical care and breakthroughs in the
ability to keep people alive, as that explodes, as things change, as
they do in the annals of human history, the question is whether or not
we are going to have a Federal bureaucracy that keeps up with the
change and keeps up with the need for an implementation regimen to
enact or see that the laws that are enacted by Congress can, in fact,
be accomplished.
With no regulations to support the measures that Congress passes--but
I will note that this Congress doesn't pass much, but that is what we
are here for, to keep up with change and to legislate, so that change
is good for Americans, their health, safety, and well-being.
When we do that, if we have a regulatory regime that is gummed up and
inoperable, then it hurts America's ability to compete in this global
marketplace. It hurts America's economy to be an economy where all
people can share in the prosperity of it.
This is what this debate has been about. Are we going to change
America? Are we going to throw out the Administrative Procedure Act,
which has been an orderly way and predictable way for regulations to be
promulgated and placed into effect?
Are we going to do away with that and then subject that rulemaking
process to a dysfunctional process like we have here in Congress today,
where we can't even pass the Export-Import Bank legislation--which, by
the way, you say, government does not create jobs, but there will be
government jobs lost as a result of us going home early without having
passed the Export-Import Bank reauthorization.
Government does create jobs, and we are going to lose tens of
thousands of
[[Page H5552]]
jobs because of our inability or our refusal to bring a measure to the
floor which has the votes--bipartisan votes--to pass this Chamber and
which has already passed the Senate in a transportation bill.
We are going to go home without having done that, and I will tell you
we will go home without having--if this legislation passes, we will go
home without passing a single regulation, and government will be gummed
up. Who will prosper? It is the economic elites who make money,
regardless.
I will call on my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
During this debate, my friends on the other side of the aisle have
raised quite a few false alarms.
If this bill passes, why, all important regulations will stop, they
say; but that is not true. All regulation that is worthy of Congress'
approval will continue.
If this bill passes, why, expert decisionmaking will stop because
Congress will have the final say on new major regulations, not
Washington bureaucrats; but that is not true. Congress will have the
benefit of the best evidence and arguments expert agencies can offer in
support of their new regulations.
Congress is capable of determining whether that evidence and those
arguments are good or not and deciding what finally will become law.
That is the job our Founding Fathers entrusted to us in the
Constitution. We should not shirk from it.
I will tell you, though, what will stop if this bill becomes law is
the endless avalanche of new, major regulations that do not deserve
Congress' approval because they impose massive, unjustified costs that
crush jobs, crush wages, and crush the spirits of America's families
and small-business owners.
Think about what that will mean to real Americans suffering the real
burdens of the Obama administration's overreaching regulations. Let me
tell you about some of them who have testified before the Judiciary
Committee.
Think of Rob James, a city councilman from Avon Lake, Ohio, a small
town that has faced devastation by ideologically driven, anti-fossil
fuel power plant regulations.
These regulations were expected to destroy jobs in Avon Lake, harm
Avon Lake's families, and make it even harder for Avon Lake to find the
resources to provide emergency services, quality schools, and help for
its neediest citizens--all while doing comparatively little to control
mercury emissions that were the stated target of the regulations.
The Supreme Court just invalidated those regulations, but not before
multiple years of job-crushing compliance costs had to be borne by
those who challenged the rules.
Think of Bob Sells, from my district. He runs a Virginia-based
division of a heavy construction materials producer. His company and
its workers were harmed by EPA cement kiln emission regulations that
were technically unattainable and vastly changed from what the EPA
proposed for public comment, other EPA emission regulations that were
stricter than needed to protect health, gerrymandered to impose
expensive controls on other types of emissions, and that prohibited
commonsense uses of cheap and safe fuel that could eventually help the
environment and the Department of Transportation regulations that,
without increasing safety, vastly increased recordkeeping for ready-mix
concrete drivers, unnecessarily limited their hours, and suppressed
their wages.
This is what the REINS Act will stop: overreaching, unjustified,
immensely costly regulation that, unless Congress stands up to protect
the American people, this administration will continue to load on to
the backs of struggling American families and small-business owners.
Support the American people. Support the REINS Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, as a cosponsor of H.R. 427 I rise in strong
support of the REINS Act.
Our bill is imperative to ensuring that federal agencies, and those
in the White House, are held accountable for the expensive and
intrusive regulations they are imposing on the American people.
The REINS Act simply requires an up or down vote by Congress on any
costly regulation proposed by a federal agency before it is allowed to
take effect.
This is a common sense check on regulators who too often ignore the
impact of their job-killing regulations.
The United States was founded on the principle of separation of
powers, a system that exists to protect the people from the unchecked,
unilateral actions of a faceless bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, the current Administration has issued regulations at
record levels and ventured into new regulatory areas that go far beyond
the originally authorized regulatory authority.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the
last five years, the Obama Administration has issued 82 ``major
rules''--or rules with more than $100 million in economic impact--each
year.
Bureaucratic red tape and costly mandates have forced small
businesses to close up shop, have resulted in other businesses laying
off workers and have made U.S. businesses less competitive.
America's job-creators and small businesses are the lifeblood of our
communities, and our economy, and we cannot stand by and let them be
overrun by rules and regulations. It's time to rein in the regulators
and bring some accountability to their unchecked power.
The American people deserve a government that is both accountable for
their actions and one that operates under a structure meant to protect
their freedoms.
I believe it's time that we stand up and put a stop to this abuse of
power, and the REINS Act is a critical step towards the achievement of
that goal.
I'm standing with hard-working Americans, the nation's small
businesses and America's job-creators. Let's pass H.R. 427 and restore
common sense in our government.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today support of H.R. 427, the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015.
In the two terms of the Obama Administration thus far, the Executive
Branch has issued increasingly costly regulations on a variety of
issues, without much thought to the devastating effects on the economy.
The REINS Act would give Congress, and therefore the people, the
power to determine whether all major regulations that have an estimated
economic impact of over $100 million, significant adverse effects on
employment, or a major increase in costs for consumers take effect.
This would return Congress to a proper role of oversight.
As a small businessman, I know firsthand the crippling impact of an
overzealous federal government. The REINS Act would finally empower
members of Congress to engage in the rulemaking process and return our
regulatory scheme to a common sense one that promotes economic growth,
creates jobs, and increases wages for working families in the First
District of Iowa while protecting our natural resources, environment,
and health.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to enact
this pro-growth legislation that assists job creators across my
district and across America.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of 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, modified by the amendment printed
in part A of House Report 114-230. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 427
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 2015''.
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:
[[Page H5553]]
``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.
``(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
[[Page H5554]]
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, 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
[[Page H5555]]
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 CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 114-230. 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. Young of Iowa
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 3, insert after ``shall'' the following:
``publish in the Federal Register a list of information on
which the rule is based, including data, scientific and
economic studies, and cost-benefit analyses, and identify how
the public can access such information online, and shall''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
{time} 1515
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Chairman Goodlatte, for his kindness in allowing
me to come forward with an amendment here.
My amendment is quite simple, and I believe it should be bipartisan.
My amendment, quite simply, requires agencies to make available on the
Internet the data, the science, studies, and analyses that a major rule
is based on.
This transparency allows everyone access to the source information
and the same information so we can all be on the same page when we talk
about these things. No one is left in the dark.
You know, Iowans ask me--and I am sure the same questions are asked
to other Members when they are home--How do regulations come to these
conclusions? How do these regulators get to where they get to when they
do these regulations? What science or data do they use? Is it sound
science?
They want to see the same data and science. They ask me: Well, can we
see it, too? And I don't have a good answer for them at the time. But I
want to make sure that they do.
So this amendment allows Americans to see that science that the
regulators use. My amendment helps answer these questions by simply
making this information available.
Federal regulations affect every aspect of a hard-working American's
day, from the moment they wake up until they go to bed at night.
They affect America's job creators, big and small, with sometimes
exorbitant costs in order to comply, but also devastating costs of lost
opportunities to grow their businesses and create more jobs.
Federal regulations have an enormous, a giant, impact on the health
of our national economy to the tune of $1.88 trillion in 2014. Federal
regulation is a constantly growing entity.
The Code of Federal Regulations, as we know, is monstrous in size,
cost and effect on our economy, and our job creators and on the bank
accounts of hard-working Americans.
I have a real dedicated interest in tackling this issue of
regulations because they affect our rights and the economy, and I am
willing to work with anyone on these issues.
I have other ideas. I think we should know who these regulators are,
who is writing these rules and regs, what is their background.
We, as Members, put our names on amendments and bills, but we don't
know the names of the people who are writing these regulations. Those
are ideas that I have, also.
We do financial disclosure reports here in Congress. Members do as
well as our senior staff. I think we should consider the impact that
this would have on those who do these regulations, making them do a
financial disclosure report. These are just some of the ideas.
But today my amendment is about making sure the science and data that
these regulators, what they come to a conclusion on, are made available
to the public so we can all be on the same page and there is
transparency and we are not left in the dark.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this Young amendment looks eerily familiar
to the so-called Secret Science Reform Act, H.R. 1030, that the House
passed in a partisan vote back in March, except the problem is that
this bill is actually even worse.
H.R. 1030 would have applied these harmful restrictions to the EPA,
but this amendment that we are looking at today would affect every
single Federal agency.
Let's look. The amendment would require an agency, as part of its
rulemaking process, to make all information used in the creation of a
rule publicly accessible, including all of the data.
That would mean that any data that is considered confidential, such
as health information or business records, would most likely become off
limits.
So, for example, an agency trying to create labeling requirements for
toxic chemicals wouldn't be able to use a study that uses personal
health data as long as that data is deemed confidential.
New scientific methods and data could be restricted because the
information includes data protected by intellectual property laws.
When we passed the Secret Science Act on a partisan vote last March,
I mentioned in my opposition that it would force the EPA to choose
between protecting our health and environment and maintaining the
privacy of patient medical records and the confidentiality of business
records. And if that argument isn't enough, let's consider the costs.
When the House Science Committee was considering the bill that I
mentioned previously, the Secret Science Act that does exactly the same
thing that the Young amendment does, except to all Federal agencies,
Democrats on the committee pointed out that the Congressional Budget
Office estimated just for that one bill that it would cost the EPA $250
million to comply with the new regulations.
If that is how much it is going to cost the EPA for one regulatory
requirement, imagine what the cost would be if you expand this mandate
across every single Federal agency. The cost would be astronomical.
Between the cost and the harmful restrictions that this imposes on
our Federal agencies, the amendment sets up an impossible hurdle for
those agencies to overcome.
We are asking them to decide between compromising institutional
review board ethics and doing their job to protect the American people.
[[Page H5556]]
It is very clear that the Young amendment and provisions like it are
not, in fact, about transparency. It really is to block Federal
agencies from doing their jobs, their jobs of protecting our air,
giving us clean water, making sure that our food supply is safe,
checking on medical devices so that they don't harm us, our
prescription drugs so that they don't make us sick, our privacy
safeguards for our workplace information, our workplace safety
standards, protections against Wall Street and its predatory lending
practices.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose this harmful and antiscience
amendment, oppose the final bill, and oppose this amendment because of
the restrictions that it would place on the American people.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, how much time is left?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maryland has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, this amendment I oppose. It would
require agencies to publish in the Federal Register a list of
information on which a rule is based, including data, scientific and
economic studies, cost-benefit analyses, and where the public can
access this information online.
While this amendment purports to make scientific information
available that is used in developing a rule, the amendment does not
define or limit what would actually constitute the term ``data.''
As a result, the term could include sensitive health data, classified
data, confidential business information, and all other forms of
information subject to a rulemaking by any Federal agency.
Especially in light of the recent disclosure that the personal and
sensitive information of millions of Federal employees maintained by
the Office of Personnel Management was hacked, Congress should be
working to prevent Federal data breaches by reducing the accumulation
and potential loss of sensitive data rather than requiring that the
publication of such vast amounts of sensitive data be the rule of law.
We just simply cannot afford that in this day and time. In sum, this
amendment would exacerbate the risk of identity theft and data
breaches.
For those reasons, I must oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues
to do so as well.
Ms. EDWARDS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support his
amendment.
Mr. Chair, the REINS Act restores to Congress the accountability for
regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. By doing
that, it ultimately strengthens the ability of the people to hold
Washington accountable.
There could hardly be a better way to ensure that Congress will
exercise its authority under the bill soundly and that the people can
hold Congress and Washington accountable than through the gentleman's
amendment.
This amendment guarantees that, when agencies publish new
regulations, they will let Congress and the people know immediately how
to access online the key scientific, economic, and cost-benefit
information on which the agencies base the regulations.
With this real-time access to information in hand, Congress will be
better positioned to scrutinize the agencies' decisions, and the public
will be better positioned to hold Congress accountable if Congress
approves regulations that it shouldn't.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, Americans deserve to know how they
are being regulated and the science that is being used to affect our
daily lives.
Right now we are left in the dark, Mr. Chairman. We need sunlight.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant here. We are unable right now to
challenge what we can't see, and that is a hard fight for the American
people to put up against.
I am urging favorability for this amendment. I ask my colleagues to
support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, 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 18, beginning on line 11, strike ``the
Administrator'', and insert ``--''
``(A) the Administrator''.
Page 18, line 15, by redesignating subparagraph (A) as
clause (i).
Page 18, line 17, by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
clause (ii).
Page 18, line 21, by redesignating subparagraph (C) as
clause (iii).
Page 18, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert
``; or''.
Page 18, insert after line 25 the following:
``(B) is made under the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (Pub. Law 111-148).''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, 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, as I have traveled across the
Eighth District of Missouri, one of the largest concerns I hear from my
constituents is the uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act.
Individuals are concerned about how the relationship with their
doctor will change and how their healthcare costs are rising.
Businesses are left with uncertainty as well.
They are afraid to hire folks because of the healthcare costs, which
leaves them understaffed. Hospitals are consolidating, and insurers are
merging as a result of the law.
The simple truth is that my constituents have fewer options. The
Affordable Care Act is hurting health care and hurting jobs in Missouri
and across the country.
That is why I am offering an amendment to protect families and job
creators from the mounting uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act.
My amendment revises the definition of a major regulation to
specifically include any regulation made under the Affordable Care Act.
With over 3,000 pages of Federal regulations already issued and many
more to follow, Congress must protect folks from this troublesome law
and keep it from causing further damage to our healthcare system.
Mr. Chairman, there is a broad bipartisan concern to the Affordable
Care Act. This administration has demonstrated its own uncertainty
through the delays to several key provisions of the bill.
Congress must stand up for the folks back home and give the American
people a voice. My amendment does just that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because
it would make the REINS Act thoroughly problematic insofar as the
Affordable Care Act is concerned.
One of my principal concerns about the REINS Act is it would
jeopardize the health and safety of Americans by substantially delaying
and possibly derailing critical regulations from ever going into
effect.
As currently drafted, the REINS Act only applies to major
regulations, that is, regulations having an annual effect of $100
million or more on the economy; regulations causing a major increase in
prices or costs for consumers,
[[Page H5557]]
individual industries, governmental agencies, or geographic regions;
and regulations having a significant adverse impact on competition,
employment, investment, and productivity.
This amendment, however, would subject all regulations, not just
major regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act, to the REINS
Act's burdensome requirements.
It is obvious that this amendment has a different purpose. It is yet
another attempt by the majority to undermine the implementation of the
comprehensive healthcare reform legislation that was enacted in 2010,
the Affordable Care Act, which, I might remind my colleagues, has been
upheld not once, but twice, by the United States Supreme Court.
We cannot allow the majority to do through this antiregulatory bill
what it has repeatedly failed to do during the last 4 years, namely, to
defeat healthcare reform. The REINS Act is a hopelessly flawed bill,
and this amendment would only make it worse.
Accordingly, I must strenuously object to the amendment and oppose
the amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I support his 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, otherwise known as
ObamaCare.
The PPACA was 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 healthcare system;
and one after the other, 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 of other aspects of implementation. This, too,
justifies the amendment's requirement that Congress approve any new
regulations promulgated under the act.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, this amendment protects the
folks back home. It stops the Obama administration and unelected
bureaucrats from issuing major new healthcare regulations, and it
improves the role of congressional oversight.
I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, 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 CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Excessive government regulations are a significant barrier to private
sector job creation. This Congress has made job creation a priority
and, therefore, we believe it is important to have a role in reviewing
these regulations to ensure that their proposed benefits outweigh any
potential economic harm.
The Sessions-Davis-Wenstrup-Barr amendment would require an agency's
report to Congress to include an assessment of estimated jobs gained or
lost as a result of the implementation of a rule. These agencies would
also be required to specify whether those jobs will come from the
public or private sector. This assessment will be part of the cost-
benefit analysis required to be submitted to the Comptroller General
and made available to each House of Congress prior to consideration of
a rule.
Over the past 6 years, our Nation's cumulative regulatory burden has
increased exponentially; and, unfortunately, this out-of-control
administration has shown no signs of slowing down. The addition of 27
major new rules last year brought the administration's 6-year total to
an astounding 184 new regulations. This has cost the country thousands
of jobs and an estimated $80 billion annually.
When regulations are considered for approval under the REINS Act, it
is imperative that Congress have a clear picture of their effect on
jobs. This amendment will help us guard against job-killing regulations
and will give Congress important oversight over the executive branch's
regulatory agenda.
At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would mandate
that the cost-benefit analysis for a proposed rule required by the
REINS Act that is submitted to Congress include an analysis of any jobs
added or lost as a result of the proposed rule, differentiating between
public and private sector jobs.
I should be clear that there is absolutely no credible evidence
proving that regulations depress job creation. In fact, one of the
majority's own witnesses at a hearing held in a prior Congress before
the House Judiciary Committee clearly debunked the myth that
regulations stymie job growth and job creation. Christopher DeMuth of
the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in
his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to
confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of
regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
Even Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George
Herbert Walker Bush administrations, has refuted the claim that
regulations undermine the economy or job growth. He explains that ``no
hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-
evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo
chamber.''
While I appreciate the sensitivity that the author of this amendment
has for employment and job development, I would encourage him to
support my amendment, which would except from the REINS Act's onerous
requirements all regulations that the Office of Management and Budget
determines would result in net job development.
My amendment would ensure that job creating rules are not delayed or
derailed as a result of the REINS Act's nearly impossible procedural
hurdles.
Unfortunately, this amendment could add even more analytical burdens
on agencies by forcing them to make a speculative assessment of whether
a regulation will facilitate job creation or have a depressive effect.
Instead of trying to turn Congress into a superadministrative agency,
which is what the REINS Act would do, we should be considering
legislation that would actually create jobs, stimulate our Nation's
economy, and help
[[Page H5558]]
millions of struggling Americans regain their financial footing with
meaningful ways to encourage full employment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), my friend, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I support his amendment.
The bill restores to Congress the accountability for regulatory
decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. As Congress makes
those decisions, one of the most important factors to consider is
whether new regulations produce jobs or destroy them.
The bill requires that when agencies submit new regulations to
Congress, they will also submit their cost-benefit analyses of the
regulations. The amendment guarantees that each of those analyses will
include a specific assessment of the jobs the regulations create and
the jobs the regulations destroy, distinguishing between private sector
and public sector jobs.
With that information, Congress will be in a better position to
determine whether to approve the rules, and the American people will be
in a better position to hold Congress accountable for its decisions.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my
colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment. I think it is only
right to require very costly and burdensome regulations being created
by this administration's regulatory environment to actually show the
taxpayers the cost benefit of what the executive branch's decision is
going to be on the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. Chairman, 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. 4 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 114-230.
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:
Page 18, line 10, insert after ``means any rule'' the
following: ``(other than a special rule)''.
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes any special rule''.
Page 20, after line 8, insert the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget determines
would result in net job growth.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would except from
H.R. 427 all rules that the Office of Management and Budget determines
would result in net job creation.
As with many other deregulatory bills we have considered this
Congress, the proponents of H.R. 427 argue that it will grow the
economy, create jobs, and increase America's competitiveness
internationally.
But we cannot pretend that this politicized legislation is about
economic growth or American prosperity.
As I have noted during the consideration of each of the
antiregulatory bills that we have considered in the 114th Congress,
there is simply no credible evidence in support of the majority's
reiteration of ``job-killing'' regulations undermining economic
growth--zero.
The tired rhetoric that my Republican colleagues have repeated again
and again since the passage of the REINS Act in 2011 has not changed in
light of the changing facts on the ground.
The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that
unemployment has fallen to 5.3 percent. While there is more work to do
to grow the economy and help our Nation's middle class, there have been
64 straight months of private sector job growth. That is 12.8 million
private sector jobs created amidst a regulatory environment that is
proworker, proenvironment, propublic health and prosafety, and
proinnovation.
And to those who would brush aside these strong employment figures,
the Department of Labor also reported last week that claims for
unemployment benefits have dropped to the lowest levels in over 40
years, the lowest level since November of 1973.
Do these numbers mean that the major rules adopted during the Obama
administration have decreased employment, grown the economy, or
contributed to the drop in unemployment benefit claims?
While I would submit that regulations have a positive effect on
sustainable economic growth, the reality is that there is little
correlation between regulations and the economy.
Don't just take my word for it; take the word of the San Francisco
and New York Federal Reserve Banks, which found zero correlation
between employment and regulation.
Take the word of Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the
Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush administrations, who strongly
refuted the claim that regulations undermine the economy or job growth,
explaining that Republicans ``assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a
tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among
businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring. No hard
evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-
evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo
chamber.''
Take the word of the Washington Post, which gave ``two Pinnochios''
to industry estimates of the costs of regulations earlier this year.
Take the word of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
which debunked claims that regulations have a trillion dollar cost to
the economy.
Mr. Chairman, we need real solutions to help real people, not yet
another thinly veiled handout to large corporations and the economic
elite.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose H.R. 427.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise 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's congressional approval procedures regulations that the Office of
Management and Budget determines will lead to net job creation.
The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives the OMB
to manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far
too often, the OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the
bill's congressional approval requirement.
In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so
by destroying real, existing jobs and creating new, hoped-for jobs
associated with regulatory compliance.
For example, some Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act rules
will shut down existing power plants. The EPA and the OMB may attempt
to justify that with claims that more new ``green'' jobs will be
created as a result.
In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the
jobs winners and the jobs losers, and there is no guarantee that all of
the new ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist.
The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It
does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose
between new jobs and old jobs. Instead, the REINS Act chooses between
two ways of making laws. It chooses the way the Framers intended, in
which accountability for laws with major economic impacts rests with
the Congress--the elected Representatives of the people.
[[Page H5559]]
It rejects the way Washington has operated for too long, where there
is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency
officials.
The amendment would undermine that fundamental accountability, so I
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that a regulation
would or would not present a choice between clean air and dirty air, I
think we can all, in unison, conclude that we would come down in favor
of clean air.
If the choice became whether or not a regulation would promote clean
water or dirty water, then I am sure that most Americans would agree
with me that we would want a regulation that would ensure clean
drinking water.
Unfortunately, if the REINS Act passes, the jobs that will be created
by the regulations which would enforce the requirement that air and
water be clean will not come to pass. We would do without the jobs, and
we would have dirty water and dirty air.
I would submit that my colleagues on the other side run to the
support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
underlying bill, which would be badly undermined by this amendment,
which would remove from Congress the ability to determine which
regulations make sense and which don't, which regulations comport with
the underlying law that the Congress passed and which do not.
That is the key to this legislation, and it is the key to why Members
should oppose this amendment. I urge them to do so.
I 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. 5 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 114-230.
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 18, line 10, insert after ``any rule'' the following:
``(other than a special rule)''.
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes a special rule''.
Page 20, insert after line 8 the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule intended to
ensure the safety of natural gas or hazardous material
pipelines or prevent, mitigate, or reduce the impact of
spills from such pipelines.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward.
It would ensure that oil and gas pipeline safety rules and pipeline
spill prevention or mitigation rules are not considered ``major rules''
under this bill.
By design, the REINS Act would likely delay or stop virtually all
future Federal rulemaking. We could spend hours listening to some of
the countless health and safety problems that this bill would cause. I
commend my colleagues for raising some of these issues in the other
amendments that are being offered today and debated.
My amendment focuses on protecting oil and gas pipeline safety and
spill mitigation rules from the needless and costly delays imposed by
this bill. These rules are particularly important to me and to my
constituents in the wake of the recent oil spill in my district.
On May 19, line 901 of the Plains All American pipeline ruptured just
north of Santa Barbara, California; and it spewed over 100,000 gallons
of crude oil onto Refugio State Beach and the surrounding areas. At
least 20,000 gallons of the oil spilled into the Pacific Ocean and
spread along nearly 100 miles of pristine California coastline,
devastating local wildlife, covering our beaches in thick tar, and
closing valuable fisheries.
One of the other tragedies of this spill is that it likely could have
been prevented--or at least minimized--if the pipeline had been using
state-of-the-art automatic shutoff and leak detection technologies.
These systems are available and are already in use in other pipelines
in the area, but this pipeline does not have these technologies because
its Federal regulator--the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, or PHMSA--currently does not require the use of these
safety systems.
Like many communities across the country, the central coast of
California, which I represent, has called for action. The good news is
that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has listened and has demanded
action to improve pipeline safety rules.
In 2011, we came together and unanimously passed the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act, which required PHMSA to
issue 42 new pipeline safety standards; yet, 4 years later, PHMSA has
yet to complete 16 of these requirements, including the rules to
strengthen standards on automatic shutoff and leak detection systems.
This unacceptable delay has not been lost on this Congress. Just 2
weeks ago, we held a bipartisan hearing in the Energy and Commerce
Committee on the long overdue implementation of these pipeline safety
standards.
Both Republicans and Democrats chided PHMSA for dragging its feet
because we all agree that these rules are long overdue and must be
completed as soon as possible. It is baffling now that, just 2 weeks
after this bipartisan hearing, we find ourselves considering a bill
that would delay these pipeline rules even further.
Let's be clear. That is exactly what the REINS Act would do. My
amendment would protect these important safety standards from the added
layers of bureaucracy that the REINS Act would impose.
I hope that my colleagues will join me again today, as they did 2
weeks ago, in working to ensure that PHMSA is not further delayed in
fulfilling its obligations. They can do this by voting for this
amendment, which would simply ensure oil and gas pipeline safety rules
are not considered ``major rules'' under the REINS Act. It would not
exempt these rules from the main reporting requirements, but it would
minimize the additional delays created by the bill.
If this bill were to become law as written, PHMSA's pipeline safety
rules would not take effect until both the House and the Senate
affirmatively voted to approve them, but both the House and the Senate
already voted unanimously in 2011 to require PHMSA to write these
rules. Going around and around in circles makes no sense.
Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill claim that the REINS Act is all
about more efficient and effective government. How is it more efficient
or effective to require Congress to reconsider and reapprove rules that
it has already voted unanimously to establish?
The simple truth is that the REINS Act is not about efficient or
effective government. It is a partisan gimmick that will do nothing but
gum up the works and needlessly delay important health and safety rules
that our constituents depend on.
My amendment won't make this a good bill--and I intend to oppose its
final passage--but my amendment would at least help to ensure that the
REINS Act does not delay oil and gas pipeline safety standards any more
than they already have been. This is something which, I hope, we can
all agree on; so I urge my colleagues to stop the delays and support my
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from
the REINS Act's reforms regulations that concern natural gas or
hazardous materials pipeline safety or the prevention of oil spills and
their adverse impacts.
[[Page H5560]]
We all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harm from
pipeline spills, but there is no assurance that the amendment would
guarantee the achievement of those goals.
On the contrary, the amendment would shield from congressional
accountability procedures regulations that actually threaten to
decrease safety. They also would shield from the bill's congressional
approval requirements new, ideologically driven regulations intended to
impede Americans' access to new sources of inexpensive, clean, and
plentiful natural gas.
This amendment clearly says that the Congress can and has voted to
have pipeline accountability and safety measures regulated but that the
Congress doesn't care what those regulations are.
The Congress does care what the regulations are, and that is why they
should come back here so that the Congress can confirm that the
regulations written comport with the legislation already passed. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, this amendment is
straightforward and common sense.
There is broad, bipartisan agreement that stronger oil and gas
pipeline safety standards are long overdue. I hope there is similar
agreement that further delaying these safety rules puts communities
like mine in California and hundreds of communities across the country
at risk.
My amendment would simply ensure that these safety rules are not
subject to the needless, burdensome delays created by the REINS Act. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
The REINS Act is intended to make sure that Federal Government
regulations get it right--solve the problem intended to be solved by
the Congress in the manner intended by the Congress. Supporting this
amendment would defeat that purpose; so I oppose the amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to do so.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. CICILLINE. 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 18, line 10, insert after ``means any rule'' the
following: ``(other than a special rule)''.
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes any special rule''.
Page 20, after line 8, insert the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule relating to
protection of the public health or safety.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to H.R. 427 would exempt
rules concerning public health or safety from the onerous requirements
of this legislation.
It is simply an acknowledgment that, when a rule is necessary to
protect public health and when it is beneficial and in the public
interest, the rule be put into effect without unnecessary delay.
If this legislation is enacted without this amendment, it will create
a regulatory environment that will make it nearly impossible for
agencies to safeguard the public well-being.
For instance, the Department of Transportation implemented an
economically significant rule for the implementation of positive train
control systems on January 15, 2010. This safety feature is designed to
correct operator errors and to slow or to stop a train in order to
prevent train-to-train collisions and overspeed derailments.
Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board have said
that this technology is necessary to prevent accidents like the
derailment of an Amtrak commuter train in Philadelphia on May 12 of
2015, which killed 7 people and injured 200 more; yet, under the REINS
Act, this vital technology would require a joint congressional
resolution, with an unrealistic timeline for implementation, before
being mandated, needlessly putting the lives of millions of Americans
at risk who ride Amtrak every year.
Proponents of this legislation may argue that H.R. 427 contains an
emergency exemption which allows a major rule to temporarily take
effect following an executive order stating that there is an imminent
threat to public health and safety.
However, as the positive train control system rule illustrates, not
every threat to the public welfare will manifest itself overnight, and
not every agency's rule is implemented as a reaction to a product
recall or to a sudden tragedy.
Even when a threat is not imminent, the fundamental responsibility to
protect the public health and well-being remains. This legislation
would substantially hinder the ability of agencies to fulfill this
obligation, placing Americans at greater risk for the benefit of
corporate interests.
In its present form, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an
alliance of more than 150 consumer, labor, faith, and other public
interest groups--has characterized the REINS Act as ``the most radical
threat in generations to our government's ability to protect the public
from harm.''
{time} 1600
Echoing this analysis, 83 of our Nation's top administrative and
environmental law professors describe this legislation as ``unnecessary
to establish agency accountability and unwise as a matter of public
policy because it undercuts the implementation of laws intended to
protect people and the environment.''
While my amendment will not cure all the flaws in this legislation,
it will address one of the most glaring problems and preserve the
ability of agencies to protect public health and safety.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any
rule pertaining to health or public safety.
Health and public safety regulation, done properly, serves important
goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement
of those goals.
But Federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an
immense part of total Federal regulation and has been the source of
many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job- and wage-
destroying regulations.
To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would be to
severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower the crushing
cumulative cost of Federal regulation and increase the accountability
of our regulatory system to the people.
These include regulations such as the Environmental Protection
Agency's multi-billion-dollar Utility MACT regulations. The Supreme
Court recently invalidated those regulations, but not before the
targets of the regulations had to spend multiple years' worth of
compliance costs.
Had the REINS Act been in place, Congress could have refused to
approve those regulations to begin with, saving billions of dollars in
unnecessary cost.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I just would say, in conclusion, that the
[[Page H5561]]
amendment will, in fact, strengthen the ability of Federal agencies to
protect the public health and well-being, and there are instances, as
the example I just gave, where the failure to act will endanger the
lives of Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to improve a badly
flawed piece of legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I urge support
for the legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. 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 Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment as the
designee of my colleague, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who
regrettably is unable to be with us today.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, line 10, insert after ``any rule'' the following:
``(other than a special rule)''.
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes a special rule''.
Page 20, insert after line 8 the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that pertains
to the safety of any products specifically designed to be
used or consumed by a child under the age of 2 years
(including cribs, car seats, and infant formula).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, this amendment improves H.R. 427 by
exempting those regulations that are critical to protecting the health
and safety of infants.
More specifically, the Jackson Lee amendment provides a special rule
pertaining to the safety of any product specifically designed to be
used or consumed by a child under the age of 2 years, which includes
cribs, car seats, and infant formula.
As a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform,
Commercial and Antitrust Law, I am very concerned about the REINS Act
and the complications and delays to the rulemaking process it would
create regarding regulations that would protect the health and safety
of children.
This legislation would amend the Congressional Review Act to prohibit
a major rule from going into effect unless Congress enacts a joint
resolution of approval within 70 legislative days. Otherwise, the rule
does not go into effect.
Effectively, no regulations will ever be enacted because it is
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to move any proposed
legislation through Congress within 70 days.
Moreover, subjecting agencies to additional reporting requirements
and congressional review, as mandated by H.R. 427, would not only be
wasteful, it could be damaging or even deadly, especially when it comes
to regulations designed to protect children and infants.
For example, much like the version of the bill that we debated in
previous sessions, the REINS Act would delay product safety rules
affecting family products like toys, cribs, and children's clothing.
In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 427 could result in
further delay to agencies attempting to take action to protect children
as it relates to harmful and deadly products, such as safety caps on
medicine, flammable clothing, and tipping furniture, just to name a
few.
Notably, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that a
child dies every 2 weeks from furniture or TVs tipping over, and
injuries from falling furniture occur every 24 minutes.
We cannot afford to put the lives and safety of infants, toddlers,
and children at risk while Congress entangles any real possibility for
immediate and preventive action.
The REINS Act is strongly opposed by many individuals and
organizations all across the country, including opposition by more than
450,000 members and supporters of the Center for Science and Democracy
at the Union of Concerned Scientist, as well as 83 academics in the
field of administrative and environmental law, and an alliance of more
than 150 consumer, labor, research, faith, and other public interest
groups representing the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
We should not hinder the democratic process and stymie regulatory
agencies' ability to protect the safety and security of the American
people, especially infants.
At a minimum, regulations promulgated to protect the safety of
infants and children should not be subjected to the strictures of H.R.
47.
The Jackson Lee amendment protects children and infants. I urge all
Members to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I 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 seeks to carve out from
the REINS Act's reforms regulations intended to protect young children
and infants from harm.
Child safety is a goal all Members share, but to shield bureaucrats
who write child safety regulations from accountability to Congress is
no way to guarantee child safety.
The only thing that that would guarantee is less careful
decisionmaking and more insulation of faceless bureaucrats from the
public.
Congress needs a better mechanism to make sure that Washington
bureaucrats make the right decision to protect child safety when we
delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bad amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, no one is attempting to shield bureaucrats
from anything. This amendment is designed to shield infants, to protect
children.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the elected Representatives of the
people are the best ones to be held accountable for the laws and
regulations passed and adopted in this country, including those that
protect children.
This would turn back to a situation where unelected bureaucrats can
take whatever time they want to, write whatever regulation they want
to, and then that would take effect without the Congress having to have
the ability to say, yes, that truly will protect children or, no, that
will not protect children.
We should have that responsibility. That is something that the
American people expect from their elected representatives. For that
reason, I oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, 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 Rhode Island
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 8 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, line 10, insert after ``any rule'' the following:
``(other than a special rule)''.
[[Page H5562]]
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes a special rule''.
Page 20, insert after line 8 the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule pertaining to
nuclear reactor safety standards.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would exempt any rule pertaining to nuclear reactor
safety standards from the new onerous approval process created by the
bill.
In other words, my amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the NRC, to continue to issue rules under the current
system, thereby making it easier to protect Americans from nuclear
disaster.
Today's bill, in the name of so-called reform, adds new procedural
hoops that agencies and departments must go through before regulation
can be issued, including requiring a joint resolution of approval for
every major rule.
The result is simply to impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of
government to accomplish one of its most basic functions: to protect
the health and welfare of its citizens.
Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health,
safety, and environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council,
Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, oppose this
bill.
According to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents
a coalition of many such groups, this bill ``is nothing more than a
back-door way to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future
safeguards that big-money interests do not want. It would force
Congress to refight its previous debates, wasting time and money, and
paralyzing vital agency work.''
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 4 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 the
displacement of 156,000 people. Inside the evacuation zone all farming
has been abandoned.
In 2011, Virginia 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 have had concerns for years, lies
just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district.
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 earthquake fault lines and, according
to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to
experience core damage because of an earthquake.
To keep my constituents and, indeed, all Americans safe, I am
offering this amendment today.
Because of the catastrophes that can result from 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
power plants to withstand severe events like earthquakes and to have
enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant length
of time.
The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to issue new
regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans.
However, H.R. 427 is intentionally designed so new and vital
regulations will likely never be put in place. We cannot permit the NRC
to never be able to create new regulations.
Therefore, I urge you to support the Nadler amendment to exempt the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the onerous new requirements for
rulemaking imposed by this bill. In that way, the NRC would have the
ability to safeguard public health and safety, as it should.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
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 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, but 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 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 ensures agencies will write better rules.
All Americans will be safer for it.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill prohibits any major regulation
from going into effect unless both the House and Senate pass and the
President signs a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative
days.
If the President and the Congress fail to approve the regulation
within the timeframe, it cannot take effect and a subsequent joint
resolution for the same regulation cannot be considered for the
remainder of the Congress.
Because of the unrealistic approval deadlines and the requirement
that both Houses approve each and every major rule, as well as the
President, this bill would effectively prevent the promulgation of many
critical protections that ensure Americans' health, safety, and
economic well-being.
The proponents say they support regulation when it makes sense. But
this is a vast government. It is a vast economy. It is a vast
socioeconomic system.
To demand that Congress pass in both Houses within 70 days and the
President sign a resolution of approval for every one of the thousands
of regulations means most will never be considered.
{time} 1615
That is why this amendment, to say that at least where people's lives
are at stake in large numbers, where safety regulations to prevent
nuclear disasters or to mitigate their effects are in question, that it
not be subject to the same restrictive requirements that this rule
would put into place, which would say that most regulations would never
get adequately considered.
In closing, I want to say that this amendment is absolutely necessary
if we want to make sure that the next time there is an earthquake, God
forbid, or some other disaster, or even just a power failure, that a
nuclear reactor doesn't have a terrible situation, that we don't get a
nuclear meltdown, and that if we do, regulations are in place to
safeguard people's lives and health.
I think if we are going to pass this terrible bill, the least we can
do is exempt nuclear safety from it. I urge all Members to support the
amendment.
[[Page H5563]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the facts speak for
themselves. During the course of the Obama administration, which I
think most people would agree has been very aggressive at imposing new
regulations upon our economy and on our society--it has averaged 81 a
year, not thousands, but 81 per year.
I think many of us would agree that some of those regulations impose
burdens that were not intended by the underlying legislation upon which
those regulations are based, and therefore this is a very manageable
way to make sure that regulations don't kill jobs and crush our
economy. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
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. 10 Offered by Mr. Pocan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 114-230.
Mr. POCAN. 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 18, line 10, insert after ``any rule'' the following:
``(other than a special rule)''.
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following: ``, and includes a special rule''.
Page 20, insert after line 8 the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that ensures
the availability of affordable medication and effective
healthcare management for veterans.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), my colleague, I rise today to offer an amendment
to prevent a spike in the copays that veterans pay for prescription
drugs as a result of this misguided bill.
Every year, the Department of Veterans Affairs publishes a rule to
ensure that veterans enrolled in the VA health program don't see as
much as a 37.5 percent increase in their prescription drug copays. In
this bill, the REINS Act, if it were signed into law, it would be very
difficult, and perhaps impossible, for the VA to publish this
rulemaking before January 1, 2016.
Let's face it, Congress doesn't exactly have a great track record on
acting fast. I used to say, when I was in the Wisconsin Legislature,
sometimes things move like a tortoise. In Congress, I explain they move
more like an upside-down tortoise.
Under this bill, copayments for approximately 2.4 million veterans
would increase significantly, causing economic hardship and health
risks for many veterans struggling to make ends meet.
If this bill were to become law, veterans with a service-connected
disability rating greater than 50 percent would see their prescription
drug copays increase more than 11 times what they were paying last
year. Veterans who are former prisoners of war or awarded a Purple
Heart would see their copays go up nearly 38 percent. Veterans, who
have been hit hardest economically after serving their country, would
see their rates spike 22 percent.
We must ensure that those who bravely have served our country don't
see Congress take money out of their pockets just to score political
points. At this time, when we still have many veterans struggling to
find a job, it is irresponsible for Congress to make it more difficult
for the men and women who have served our country to pay more for the
health care they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment carves out of the REINS
Act's congressional approval procedures all regulations from the
Department of Veterans Affairs that concern the availability of
affordable medication and effective healthcare management for veterans.
Affordable medication and effective healthcare management for
veterans are goals every Member of Congress can support, but every
Member of Congress also knows the Department of Veterans Affairs'
appalling recent incompetence and negligence in administering its
programs. Rather than diminish the Department's accountability to
Congress for regulatory decisions concerning veterans' health care, we
should increase the Department's accountability. That is precisely what
the REINS Act does.
Under the legislation, the Department will know that Congress must
approve its major regulations concerning affordable medication and
effective healthcare management before they go into effect. That
provides a powerful incentive for the Department to write the best
possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with much of what the gentleman has
said. The only problem is, as much as we have had some problems in the
VA--and we need to take actions, and we are, including in Wisconsin
where we have had an action that, in a bipartisan way, we have been
working together on--the only thing worse could be the performance of
Congress.
There is a reason why the public currently rates cockroaches, head
lice, traffic jams, zombies, and even the band Nickelback higher than
Congress. Clearly, we do not have a performance record that shows if we
pass this bill we can absolutely guarantee that a veteran won't be
paying more, a spike as much as 38 percent, or 11 times what they are
currently paying.
I am not going to bet on Congress, and I am guessing the American
public won't bet on Congress, but we have the ability with this
amendment to at least say we are going to make sure those who have
served our country won't pay more for their prescription drugs if we
don't get our work done, because they have seen that all too often.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment says is, because the
Department of Veterans Affairs is doing a remarkably bad job of
providing timely health care to citizens, we should carve out that
Department's responsibility for providing medications and timely health
care and exempt it from the accountability that Congress, the elected
representatives of the people, who are very responsive to the needs of
veterans, would impose.
With the REINS Act, Congress could instruct, with the passage of
legislation to help veterans, and say, ``You must report back
regulations within a certain time period,'' which the Congress could
then act upon in a timely fashion, assuring themselves that not only
have the regulations been done quickly, but also that they are going to
address the problems in an effective way that we have all identified
with what is going on in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will simply
preserve the bad system we have now for helping our veterans through a
Department of Veterans Affairs that is unaccountable. We should,
instead, make them more accountable by passing the REINS Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H5564]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.
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.
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, 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. 427) 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.
____________________