[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.

                          ____________________