[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 165 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6274-H6283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT OF 2016


                             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 include extraneous materials on H.R. 5982.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 921 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. 5982.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0914


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H6275]]

House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
5982) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
rules'', and for other purposes, with Mr. Denham in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As the Obama administration comes to a close, Americans' freedom and 
prosperity is once again threatened by one of the most abusive features 
of modern bureaucracy: midnight regulation.
  Midnight regulation is one of the most vexing problems in 
Washington's overreaching regulatory system. Administration after 
administration, there is a spike in rulemaking activity during the last 
year of a President's term--particularly between election day and 
Inauguration Day, but even in the months before then.
  These successive waves of midnight regulation present deeply 
troubling issues. First and foremost, because outgoing administrations 
are no longer accountable to the voters, they are much more prone to 
issue midnight regulations that fly in the face of the electoral 
mandate the voters just gave the new, incoming administration.
  Waves of midnight rules can also be very hard for Congress or a new 
administration to check adequately. As a new Congress and President 
begin their terms, both, understandably, must be focused on 
implementing the new priorities within the mandates the voters have 
given them. That doesn't always leave time to focus on cleaning up all 
of the last acts of the departing administration.
  In addition, the Congressional Review Act currently allows Congress 
to disapprove of regulations--including midnight regulations--only one 
at a time. A wave of midnight regulations can easily overwhelm 
Congress' ability to use one-rule-at-a-time resolutions as an effective 
check.
  Finally, it is well-documented that the rush by outgoing 
administrations to impose midnight rules before the clock strikes 12 
leads to more poorly analyzed rules with lower quality and lower 
benefits.
  The Obama administration has imposed more runaway regulation than any 
other in memory, and its midnight rulemaking period is no exception. 
This administration has issued or plans to issue at least 180 midnight 
rules within the scope of this bill, including multiple billion-dollar 
rules and more than 20 major rules imposing $100 million or more in 
costs per year. It has been estimated that as many as $113 billion in 
new regulatory costs can be attributed to the final months of the Obama 
administration's rulemaking activity.
  But this is not a partisan issue. Administrations of both parties 
have issued midnight rules in the past. The Judiciary Committee has 
been searching for that solution for some time, and I applaud our 
colleague, Mr. Issa, for introducing the Midnight Rules Relief Act to 
respond to the need. This bill offers, at last, a simple and powerful 
means to stop the problem of abusive midnight rules--allowing Congress 
to disapprove of any and all midnight regulations in one fell swoop by 
one en bloc disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act.
  Any outgoing administration, understanding that it has this sword of 
Damocles hanging over its head for the next Congress' use, will surely 
hesitate much more before abusing midnight rules. Further, once enabled 
to dispose of all improper midnight rules with one simple resolution, 
Congress and succeeding administrations would be free to focus more of 
their energies on the voters' new priorities rather than the mess left 
by midnight rules.
  The relief offered by the bill, moreover, is highly flexible. No set 
number of regulations would have to be covered by a resolution. No 
categories of regulation would have to be included in or excluded from 
a resolution. On the contrary, any midnight rule disapproval resolution 
could be sweeping or narrow, depending on how many rules merited 
inclusion.
  Finally, the Midnight Rules Relief Act offers a solution that is not 
intrusive upon legitimate executive branch authority. An outgoing 
administration remains free to conduct necessary rulemaking activity up 
to the stroke of midnight on Inauguration Day. It then falls to 
Congress to respond swiftly and surgically to the results, to accept 
the good and excise the bad.
  This is truly a better way to govern. That is why the reform embodied 
in this bill is featured in Speaker Ryan's Better Way agenda.
  I thank Mr. Issa for his work on this important legislation, and I 
urge all my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5982, the Midnight 
Rules Relief Act. This sweeping measure would empower Congress to undo 
virtually every regulation submitted to Congress since May through to 
the end of this year. I repeat: this measure would empower Congress to 
undo virtually every regulation submitted to Congress since May through 
to the end of this year. The bill accomplishes this end by authorizing 
Congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution, 
thereby depriving Members to consider the merits of each individual 
regulation.
  H.R. 5982 presents numerous concerns. To begin with, this bill would 
provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block 
critical, lifesaving regulations.
  Prior to submitting results to Congress, agencies typically take 
several years to ensure that rules are carefully vetted. As 
administrative law expert Washington University School of Law Professor 
Ron Levin has previously testified, much of modern rulemaking involves 
a ``very detailed analysis of legal, factual, and policy issues, many 
of them highly technical. This work is better suited to the subject 
matter specialists in the respective agencies.''
  Faced with this complexity, H.R. 5982 would result in Congress 
predictably relying on industry input when presented with an up-or-down 
vote on a long list of complicated and often highly technical rules. 
David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council has previously 
cautioned that similar measures would result in special interests 
descending on the Congress with even greater fervor than is currently 
the case.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 5982 is based on the fundamentally 
flawed premise that rules finalized during the final year of a 
President's term are somehow rushed or improperly vetted. In fact, the 
nonpartisan Administrative Conference of the United States found in 
2012 that ``a dispassionate look at midnight rules issued by past 
administrations of both political parties reveals that most were under 
active consideration long before the November election.''
  The conference also reported that many of these rules involved purely 
routine matters initiated before the Presidential transition period or 
as the result of deadlines outside the agency's control, such as year-
end statutory or court-ordered guidelines.
  Indeed, the so-called midnight rules may actually take longer to 
adopt than other rules. For example, Public Citizen reports that rules 
adopted during a Presidential transition period were typically proposed 
3.6 years prior to their adoption, while other rules adopted in non-
transition periods took only 2.8 years to complete.
  The Center for Progressive Reform has likewise observed that concerns 
surrounding midnight rulemaking are overstated, stating that ``there 
simply is no reason to believe that a rule released at the end of an 
administration is worse than those that are released at any other 
point.'' Perhaps this is because Congress already has the tools to 
vacate an unreasonable rule under current law known as the 
Congressional Review Act.
  Lastly, as with the many other antiregulatory bills we have 
considered

[[Page H6276]]

in this Congress, this legislation completely ignores the benefits of 
regulation and is premised on the unsubstantiated belief that 
regulations undermine employment or economic growth. This is why H.R. 
5982 is opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the 
AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the 
Natural Resources Defense Council.
  As the administration correctly observes in connection with its veto 
threat to this bill--and there is one--H.R. 5982 would create 
tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs 
on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound 
regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the 
environment, and other critical aspects of society. Accordingly, I 
oppose--and hope that you will too--this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Midnight Rules Relief Act 
of 2016 is yet another unfounded and reckless attempt to prevent the 
implementation of critical laws by the Republican majority.
  H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act to enable Congress 
to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a 
President's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of 
disapproval. Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through 
this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent 
express authorization by Congress.
  According to my Republican colleagues, the Obama administration's 
regulatory agenda has eroded job growth and economic prosperity--far 
from it, however. Under President Obama's leadership, we have seen the 
longest consecutive streak of private job creation, the fastest growth 
of middle class income ever, and more high-quality and affordable 
health care for working Americans.
  Recently, the Census Bureau released new data indicating that in 2015 
the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record, while 
the poverty rate fell at a faster rate than at any point since 1968. 
New data from the American Community Survey indicates that the number 
of uninsured Americans is declining in nearly every State. These 
metrics reflect a strong record of progress as Federal agencies 
implement laws like the Dodd-Frank Act and the Affordable Care Act.
  If anything, Mr. Chairman, we need new rules and better enforcement 
of existing law to ensure corporate accountability. In fact, it has 
only been months since the shocking revelations of Wells Fargo's years 
of illegal banking practices have come to light. This sweeping display 
of corporate deception and hubris smacks of the very culture and lack 
of internal controls that gave rise to the mortgage crisis, collapsing 
the economy and employment.
  Indeed, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has cautioned, this 
scandal ought to be a moment where people stop and note, remember how 
dangerous the system is when you don't have the proper protections in 
place.
  While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued its largest 
civil penalty ever--$100 million--in response to this scandal, this was 
a drop in the bucket compared to the bank's $20 billion in profits last 
year or its chief executive's $200 million stock compensation deal. 
What is more, not only did the bank deceive its own customers, Wells 
Fargo buried the scandal through forced arbitration clauses that 
shielded itself from liability and public accountability.
  This is simply unacceptable and drives home the point that there is 
still much work to be done to ensure fairness and accountability in the 
financial system, regardless of how many days may be left in the 
President's term.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. 
Mr. Goodlatte has done an excellent job there, and we appreciate the 
work on this bill and many other things as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5982, the 
Midnight Rules Relief Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from 
California (Mr. Issa).
  Over the last 8 years, the Obama administration has gone, let's face 
it, on a regulatory rampage. Each year, the administration's major 
rules have cost over $100 billion--$100 billion. A disproportionate 
share of those enormous costs have fallen on America's 28 million small 
businesses.
  As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I have heard 
firsthand from the owners and employees of these small businesses in 
our hearing room, and also back home in my district in Cincinnati, 
Ohio, how these new regulations have harmed them personally. And I want 
to emphasize that it doesn't just hurt the owner of the small business, 
but all those folks who work for him. Sometimes that is two people, 
three people, five people, ten people. It affects them and their 
families, and generally it is very adversely.
  I think it is critical we realize that about 70 percent of the new 
jobs created in the American economy nowadays are created by these 
small businesses that, basically, have had these regulations that this 
administration has imposed on them. It is like a wet blanket over them 
and over this economy. So this particular legislation is absolutely 
critical. It is critical that we pass it.
  The last thing that these small businesses need right now is a flood 
of new regulations from the President's army of bureaucrats as they 
beat a hasty retreat out of Washington. Outgoing Presidents oftentimes 
push through new regulations in the final days of their administrations 
to lock in as much of their agenda as possible.
  Let's face it, on election day, that agenda was, for the most part, 
rejected. And to allow an administration to impose even more 
bureaucracy and more regulations on the small business community and on 
the American people is just something that we should not allow to 
happen. That is why this legislation has been introduced.
  These so-called midnight rules are thrown together hastily with 
little analysis or regard for the costs and burdens that they will 
impose on America's entrepreneurs. Sadly, the administration has given 
every indication that they will be ramping up, not slowing down, the 
red tape dispenser over the next 9 weeks. This commonsense, bipartisan 
legislation will give Congress, the elected representatives of the 
American people after all, the power to stop all midnight rules with 
one vote.
  Next weekend, we will celebrate Small Business Saturday, an 
opportunity to celebrate small businesses, and recognize that they are 
a key to making our economy succeed. Midnight regulations are an 
imminent threat to their success. So let's not spoil Small Business 
Saturday by having a whole bunch of new regulations, new red tape, new 
things that they have to deal with other than actually doing things 
which will make their business successful so that they can actually 
make a profit and hire more people. Let's not allow the bureaucrats 
here in Washington to spoil that.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and send a clear message to 
our small businesses all across America that we have their back and 
regulatory relief is on the way.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5982, the so-called 
Midnight Rules Relief Act, which amends the Congressional Review Act. 
This bill would allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to 
simultaneously disapprove multiple regulations en bloc, all at once, 
when such rules are issued within the last 60 legislative days of a 
session of Congress in the final year of a President's term. Now, that 
is legislative days. In this case, 60 legislative days

[[Page H6277]]

would reach back until May of this year, almost 8 months before the end 
of the President's term. To call the rules issued last spring a 
midnight rule is a curious use of the word.
  This bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to eliminate rules, 
many of which have been under consideration for years, even decades, to 
protect consumers, working people, and students. This bill denies 
Congress the opportunity for a careful case-by-case review that the 
congressional review process now provides, and that process would be 
appropriate for reasoned decisionmaking by a legislative body.
  This bill would jettison rules without even considering the costs and 
benefits of whether the rule followed the least burdensome approach to 
achieve a goal under the law. Once a rule is rejected, the rule can 
never be taken up again in substantially similar form. So after a 
thoughtful review, we might decide that the unpleasant regulation was 
actually the better way to address a problem than any alternative, but 
by then it is too late.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate could 
pass its en bloc resolution of disapproval without even holding a 
hearing, and send it to the House for a vote on the floor without any 
form of consideration by the committee of jurisdiction. So we would end 
up just voting on a slogan or a sound bite without any opportunity for 
deliberative consideration. That is not a responsible way to legislate.
  There has always been criticism of a tendency of a significant number 
of rules and regulations to be issued following a Presidential election 
before the President leaves office, regardless of the party in control. 
However, the nonpartisan congressionally mandated Administrative 
Conference of the United States found that ``a dispassionate look at 
midnight rules issued by past administrations of both political parties 
reveals that most were under active consideration long before the 
November election.''
  They go on to say that many of the rules involved routine matters or 
were required by law. For example, a final OSHA rule to prevent 
injuries caused by inadequate fall protection has been under 
development for over 26 years.
  The Administrative Conference called for Congress to put in place a 
60-day waiting period for rules that are issued after a Presidential 
election so that the new incoming administration can review the rules. 
Now, that legislation is what we really ought to be considering, not 
the bill before us today.
  I think it is important to look at some of the rules that could be 
impacted under this bill:
  The Department of Labor issued a rule requiring Federal contractors 
to provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave annually for people working 
on Federal contracts.
  A forthcoming OSHA regulation, which has been under development for 
over 18 years, would protect workers from overexposure of beryllium. 
That is a substance that causes incurable lung disease often resulting 
in death by suffocation. That rule has been under consideration for 18 
years and we are finally getting to the actual rule.

  The rule to implement the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive 
Order, which ensures that taxpayer dollars support those Federal 
contractors who comply with labor, civil rights, and workplace safety 
laws, not those who routinely and seriously violate such laws.
  The EEOC's pay data rule, which helps eliminate pay disparities due 
to race, ethnicity, and gender.
  The Department of Education's borrower's defense rule, which helps 
protect student borrowers who were defrauded by their universities.
  The Department of Education's forthcoming K-12 accountability rule, 
which provides clarity and ensures faithful implementation of the 
bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act in order to graduate all students 
ready for success in college and career.
  The Department of Education's forthcoming supplement not supplant 
rule, which ensures that Federal dollars actually supplement State and 
local education funds that target at-risk youth.
  And, finally, another Health and Human Services' Head Start rule, 
which improves quality and access for our Nation's most vulnerable 
early learners.
  Each of these rules involves complex issues that cannot be discussed 
or properly addressed through the en bloc process where you have a 
bunch of regulations all in one bill. Now, if a rule needs to be 
challenged, the present law provides for a deliberative process to 
challenge the rule. Regrettably, H.R. 5982 is poised to allow the 
wholesale undermining of critical protections for students, workers, 
taxpayers, and consumers.
  I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy in opposition to the rule.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


HR. 5982 Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016--Rep. Issa, R-CA, and eight 
                               cosponsors

       The Administration is committed to ensuring that 
     regulations are smart and effective, that they are tailored 
     to advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and 
     efficient manner, and that they minimize uncertainty. When a 
     Federal agency promulgates a regulation, the agency must 
     adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural 
     requirements of Federal law, including the Administrative 
     Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 
     Congressional Review Act, in a manner that ensures that the 
     rulemaking process is transparent and considers the input of 
     stakeholders. In addition, for decades, agency rulemaking has 
     been governed by Executive Orders issued and followed by 
     administrations of both political parties. These require 
     regulatory agencies to promulgate regulations, consistent 
     with their statutes, upon a reasoned determination that the 
     benefits justify the costs, to consider regulatory 
     alternatives, and to promote regulatory flexibility.
       The Administration continues to be guided by the same 
     rigorous practices and principles used to develop and review 
     regulations that have been upheld throughout the entirety of 
     this Administration and previous Administrations. On December 
     17, 2015, the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs reiterated that the Administration would 
     maintain its normal review standards, and instructed agencies 
     to plan and prioritize its regulations in order to ensure an 
     orderly review process during the final year of the 
     Administration. For these reasons, H.R. 5982 is intended to 
     solve a problem that does not exist.
       Lastly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) already allows 
     for the Congress to disapprove of rules on a case-by-case 
     basis. Thus, providing for an arbitrary packaging of rules 
     for an up-or-down vote, as this bill does, is unnecessary. In 
     addition, the bill would expand the scope of rules subject to 
     the CRA such that by the time a vote on a resolution occurs, 
     some of the rules may have been in effect for over a year. By 
     doing so, H.R. 5982 would create tremendous regulatory 
     uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on 
     businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound 
     regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the 
     environment, and other critical aspects of society.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 5982 his senior 
     advisors would recommend he veto the bill.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Presidents from both parties have made a habit of midnight rules. And 
although here today we hear about 18 years of a deliberative process on 
beryllium, 18 years of consideration and it has to be passed in the 
last few days of a departing administration? What was the 
administration doing for 8 years? How deliberative can one be?
  The fact is these are not accidents. Midnight rules are, in fact, 
deliberately held to the end of an administration. That is the reason 
they are called midnight rules.
  Now, having said that, the bill today, H.R. 5982, is not, in fact, 
about midnight rules. We already have legislation to take care of that. 
What we don't have is an effective way to do it when we are dealing 
with, perhaps, 100, 120, 150, and, if not checked, perhaps more, in 
times to come, midnight rules from an outgoing administration.
  We are talking today about the balance of power, about whether 
Congress should be efficient and effective in its ability to consider 
legislation. In this case, legislation done by the other branch, a 
branch not constitutionally allowed to do legislation. Let's remember, 
regulations are, in fact, a loan to the executive branch to clarify 
legislation done by this body.
  If we believe that they do not fairly and appropriately interpret our 
legislation in their rulemaking, if we believe

[[Page H6278]]

they exceeded the authority or the meaning of the legislation, whether 
passed just a few days ago, a few years ago, or, in fact, a century 
ago, we have an obligation to bring up, consider, and respond. In fact, 
rulemaking, as we know it, is, in fact, something that if the 
gentleman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, wanted to, he 
could bring up the regulation as a law and consider it in this body at 
any time.
  I believe it is pretty clear that the objection in this case is an 
anticipated objection to the efficiency of being able to deal with one 
or two regulations at the end of a Presidency. We have an obligation to 
deal with all of them in a fair way.
  Now, one thing that was missed in this is nothing in this legislation 
requires that we take them all up at the same time. In the next 
Congress, it certainly would be appropriate for Members who wanted to 
have longer debate to ask for longer debate on the overall vote, or, in 
fact, to break it into pieces and ask for that. That is true in this 
body and it is true in the other body. As a matter of fact, the other 
body hasn't even created rules yet and certainly could create rules 
that would define further debate on midnight rules.
  So I think today what we are really talking about is: Will Congress 
live up to its responsibility to the American people to, in fact, be 
the bastion of law creation, whether laws are created by this body 
directly or in the review of regulations created by an administration 
on behalf of this body? Ultimately, we own responsibility for laws and 
regulations, whether they work or don't work.
  Lastly, this body has not done nearly enough to review regulations 
and their effect. During my tenure on another committee, over and over 
again I saw regulations by both administrations I have served under to 
create regulations that they said would cost little or nothing. By the 
time they come to pass, we discover they almost inevitably have a 
greater impact to our economy, adverse impact in many cases, than 
forecasted. That review is another area that we should do.
  But for today, this simple piece of legislation is only asking that 
Congress live up to its responsibility and do so in a way that would 
not tie up weeks or months of either body simply to decide that a 
regulation needs to be sent back for further review and, perhaps, 
reissued in a fashion more consistent with the laws created by this 
body and signed by previous Presidents.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for speakers, and 
I am prepared to close if the gentleman is likewise.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, I am prepared to close as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have closing remarks that I would like 
to present at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
  With just a few weeks remaining in this Congress, it is a disservice 
to the American people that we are now wasting our limited time and 
resources on this legislation. As many of my colleagues will recall, 
less than 4 months ago, the House passed comprehensive anti-regulatory 
legislation that imposes a moratorium on so-called midnight rulemaking. 
So, clearly, the House has already acted to address the nonexistent 
problem of midnight rulemaking.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to seriously join me in opposing 
H.R. 5982, a bill that is utterly unnecessary, anointed, and ill 
conceived.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  On election day, the American people delivered a resounding message 
to Washington: do not continue the Obama administration's policies; 
stop the regulatory Big Government onslaught that has been killing our 
jobs, strangling recovery, and suffocating our futures.
  Passage of this bill is the way to say immediately: We have heard you 
loud and clear. The American people have said ``no'' to the continuance 
of the Obama administration's policies. This bill guarantees that 
Congress can prevent any and all last-minute defiance of the people's 
will by midnight regulations that stubbornly seek to entrench the last 
pieces of the administration's partisan agenda.
  Those regulations come from a host of agencies. They include 
everything from overtime rules to greenhouse gas emission standards for 
heavy-duty engines and vehicles and scores of other regulations in 
between, and they threaten to impose on our economy over $100 billion 
in new annual costs.
  It is not Obama administration bureaucrats who should tell the people 
what they must do in these areas, rushing costly political preferences 
out the door before the stroke of midnight. It is the incoming 
administration, working with Congress, that should determine the rules 
to govern the future and the regulatory rollbacks that will let freedom 
ring and Americans prosper.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5982, the 
Midnight Rules Relief Act, which allows Congress to disapprove en bloc 
regulations from the Administrations submitted for review within 60 
days of the end of a presidential term.
  Under current law, Congress can only use its authority under the 
Congressional Review Act to disapprove one regulation at a time. 
Presidential Administrations of both parties have issued bulk 
regulations as their term comes to an end. These midnight regulations 
are usually rushed and not properly vetted by federal agencies, often 
imposing high costs on taxpayers, threatening small businesses with new 
burdens, and frustrating American voters. Currently, Congress lacks the 
ability to check this type of regulatory overreach. H.R. 5982 ensures 
that rules are not rushed in order to achieve an outgoing partisan 
agenda without having the people's representatives carefully review 
them.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Dold). All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5982

       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 ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 
     2016''.

     SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL 
                   PERTAINING TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

       (a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 
     paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain 
     one or more such rules if the report under subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the final 
     year of a President's term.''.
       (b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the 
     following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
     joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after 
     the resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows: 
     `That Congress disapproves the following rules: the rule 
     submitted by the __ relating to __; and the rule submitted by 
     the __ relating to __. Such rules shall have no force or 
     effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in and 
     additional clauses describing additional rules to be included 
     as necessary)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
those printed in part B of House Report 114-818. 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. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 114-818.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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 3, line 12, insert ``(A)'' before ``In applying''.
       Page 3, line 14, insert after ``one or more such rules'' 
     the following: ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 16, insert after ``President's term.'' the 
     following:

[[Page H6279]]

       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excepted 
     rule'' means a rule that is necessary because of an imminent 
     threat to health or safety or other emergency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from H.R. 5982 
the rules issued in response to an imminent threat to health, safety, 
or other emergencies.
  My amendment addresses one of the most problematic aspects of H.R. 
5982 which would permit Congress to invalidate rules en bloc without 
proper consideration of any individual rule's benefits and no matter 
how important or time-sensitive such rule may be.
  Agencies often promulgate emergency rules in response to immediate 
threats to public health and safety. As the Congressional Review Act 
itself recognizes, such critical rules can go into effect immediately 
if the President so directs by executive order.
  H.R. 5982 would, however, empower a subsequent Congress and 
administration to override such determination and disapprove these 
rules. As a result of such disapproval, these regulations would be null 
and void, as if they had never taken effect.
  It is no secret that industry and special interests have strenuously 
opposed many life-saving requirements that the Federal Government has 
imposed over the years, such as air quality standards, the mandatory 
installation of automobile airbags, and emergency exit lighting for 
passenger airplanes.
  Nevertheless, H.R. 5982 provides an open invitation for industry to 
have yet another bite of the apple by seeking to undo regulations in a 
new Congress and administration.
  For example, let us consider the Flint water crisis in my State, 
which was a preventable public health disaster. While much blame for 
the Flint water crisis lies with unelected officials who prioritized 
saving money over saving lives, the presence of lead in drinking water 
is not unique to Flint. In fact, the drinking water of potentially 
millions of Americans may be contaminated by lead. It is a continuing 
problem.
  Long before this crisis surfaced, the Environmental Protection Agency 
had been in the process of updating its Lead and Copper Rule, which was 
originally promulgated in 1991 after years of analysis. In fact, that 
agency is still in the process of finalizing this regulation.
  Yet, had this rule been submitted to Congress last month and gone 
into effect immediately pursuant to executive order, H.R. 5982 could be 
used by the incoming Congress and administration to invalidate this 
critical regulation.
  So, accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to support my 
commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  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. Chair, the Midnight Rules Relief Act leaves to 
each Congress, making use of its maximum flexibility, to fashion a 
midnight rule disapproval resolution. No one category of regulation is 
in; no one category of regulation is out.
  The question, instead, is: Which are the midnight rules, from 
whatever category, that fly in the face of the voters' mandate or are 
otherwise abusive or infirm?
  No carve-outs of any kind are needed, including for health, safety, 
and other emergency rules, because nothing is categorically carved in.
  Indeed, by carving out emergency rules, the amendment would only 
impede the ability of Congress to both respond swiftly and efficiently 
to abusive midnight rules and clear the path for the incoming 
administration to issue appropriate new rules to meet emergencies.
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I have no other requests, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 114-818.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 3, line 12, insert ``(A)'' before ``In applying''.
       Page 3, line 14, insert after ``one or more such rules'' 
     the following: ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 16, insert after ``President's term.'' the 
     following:
       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excepted 
     rule'' means a rule that was proposed by a Federal agency 
     more than three years prior to the agency submitting the rule 
     to Congress.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It 
would exempt rules issued by an agency more than 3 years prior to their 
submission to Congress.
  This amendment is designed to confront the fundamentally flawed 
premise of H.R. 5982, namely, that rules submitted to Congress during 
the final 60 legislative days of a session are somehow less valid than 
rules submitted prior to that period.
  To set the record straight, this bill does not apply to rules 
submitted during the lameduck period following an election.
  Notwithstanding the bill's colorful title, H.R. 5982 applies to every 
rule submitted to Congress within the final 60 legislative days of a 
session.
  As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has clarified, this 
would include rules submitted as early as May 2016. Eight months should 
be adequate time for Congress to consider the merits of economically 
significant rules, which often take years to finalize.
  Indeed, according to the nonpartisan, congressionally established 
Administrative Conference of the United States, the ACUS, many of these 
rules adopted between an election and the inauguration of a new 
President involve ``relatively routine matters not implicating new 
policy initiatives by incumbent administrations.''
  Public Citizen similarly found in a report issued earlier this year 
that rules adopted during the final months of an administration take 
3.6 years on average to finalize. And that is just rules that are 
submitted to Congress during the final 3 months of a President's term.
  Again, this bill applies to rules adopted during much of the final 
year of the President's term, dramatically undercutting the bill's 
stated purpose. So, despite the majority's claims that the bill applies 
to midnight rules, this legislation would allow Congress to bundle 
numerous rules finalized during the final year of a President's term 
into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. In other 
words, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a solution to a nonexistent and 
undocumented problem.
  Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this 
process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent 
express authorization by Congress.
  I am also struck by the irony of the majority's stated concerns with 
a lack of transparency and public scrutiny in the policymaking process. 
This bill has not been subject to a single hearing. In fact, it was 
introduced less than a week prior to its markup in committee.
  This legislation is symptomatic of a Republican majority more 
interested in focusing on coming up with the next great bill title or 
acronym than actually solving issues or helping the American people.

[[Page H6280]]

  


                              {time}  1000

  Perhaps the majority should follow its own advice and proceed with 
regular order on new and controversial legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which is critical to 
ensuring that the rules that have already taken years to finalize to 
improve lives and protect people actually see the light of day.
  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, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment encourages two of the worst features of Washington 
bureaucracy. First, it gives heel-dragging, inefficient agencies a 
powerful incentive to take even longer to finalize rules proposed long 
ago to the public. This will only extend the regulatory uncertainty 
that hovers over job creators whenever new rules are proposed. 
Regulatory uncertainty freezes investment and job creation, and that is 
exactly what we do not need Washington to do.
  Second, the amendment gives agencies the incentive to cram even more 
rules into the abusive midnight rule period. We should be discouraging 
the use of midnight rules not encouraging it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I would submit that we, on this 
side, are always interested in making the rulemaking process more 
efficient, and this is an important bipartisan concern. The trouble is 
when you get bills that are half-baked and they are sprung on the 
minority and not even subjected to a full committee and the regular 
order that we would proceed through with legislation as important as 
this--it is sprung on us, and it ends up on the House floor as half-
baked as it was when it was introduced--this is no way to go about 
reform.
  I would just ask that this amendment be accepted. There is no doubt 
that this legislation is not going to go anywhere during this session 
of Congress, in terms of being signed into law.
  My pledge is that we would work together in the future to draft 
legislation that improves the rulemaking process, and not shut it down 
or gum it up.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised at my colleague from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Since I am the author of the bill, I would say that for the 16 years 
I have been in Congress, I have been deliberating this piece of 
legislation, so it certainly is not new.
  In much more seriousness, to call this not regular order is simply 
inaccurate. This has been discussed in multiple hearings, and it went 
through regular order with a full committee markup. So I would hope 
that the gentleman would reevaluate his words and recognize that half-
baked would be inappropriate. This was fully vetted, and he had time 
for all the amendments we are hearing today at the time it was in 
committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, 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 amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 114-818.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 12, insert ``(A)'' before ``In applying''.
       Page 3, line 14, insert after ``one or more such rules'' 
     the following: ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 16, insert after ``President's term.'' the 
     following:
       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excepted 
     rule'' means a rule that pertains to critical matters of 
     national security.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me take a moment to acknowledge my 
ranking member and my chairman for I believe that this past session has 
generated an enormous amount of bipartisanship and cooperation. I thank 
Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership. I also thank Ranking Member 
Conyers for the important leadership he has given to issues that we 
have warned about for a long time, and that is criminal justice reform.
  I say that in the backdrop of being enormously concerned about H.R. 
5982, which is redundant since we have already passed midnight 
regulation legislation. The House did that earlier this year to 
establish a moratorium on midnight rules, rather than addressing 
critical issues, such as creating new opportunities for job growth and 
advancement, or fixing our Nation's broken immigration system, 
providing relief from crushing student loan debt, and, yes, moving 
forward on criminal justice reform.
  We have legislation that now seems directed at President Obama before 
the election of last week and now, again, continuing to wish to do 
something that impacts, I think, personally and directly on the 
President of the United States, who happens to be President Barack 
Obama. Because otherwise there is no real basis for this legislation.
  I have amendment No. 3 that speaks to it and clearly specifically 
states why this is a problem. It provides a limited exception from the 
provisions of H.R. 5982 of any administrative regulation or rule 
promulgated to prevent or respond to matters of critical national 
security.
  Mr. Chairman, if enacted in its current form, this bill will severely 
hamper our Nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or 
to address many other critical public policy matters related to public 
safety or national security.
  The American people should know this is an en bloc destruction of 
regulations that may save lives. It is to say: in your eye, Mr. 
President--and yes, whoever it may be--because it feigns itself to be 
bipartisan because it says ``a President.'' Well, obviously we know 
what President we are talking about right now. Probably next year, this 
will be completely eliminated.
  First of all, if it goes through now, it should be vetoed; and I am 
sure any other President would veto it. They have to have the 
opportunity and the responsibility, as their constitutional duties, to 
stand in the gap for the American people. This would severely hamper 
our Nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or to 
address many other critical public policy matters.
  It would amend the congressional review to allow joint resolutions 
disapproving en bloc resolutions submitted to Congress for CRA review 
within 60 days of the end of the Presidential term. I don't attribute 
to any President any malice just because their term is about to end.
  I hold up for you the west Texas fertilizer plant blast that killed 
15. The blast was preventable, the safety board says. And our 
President, rightly so, in mourning the loss of these individuals--the 
bomb explosion, if you will, was around schools. Thank God it was at 
night and these children were not nearby because the schools were 
leveled--so the President issued executive orders dealing with this 
issue.
  I ask my colleagues to vote down this particular underlying bill and 
support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It 
carves out rules pertaining to critical matters of national security. 
As we know, with President Obama, President-elect Trump, and any other 
President, they have huge powers of executive authority when it comes 
to national security.

[[Page H6281]]

So to exclude something under the guise that it would be national 
security would inherently undermine the intent of the rule.
  I always find it interesting that people internalize and personalize 
something. In this case, there is nothing better that this President 
could do for the American people--and perhaps for regulations that he 
would oppose in the future--than to sign this legislation. The fact is 
President Obama likely objects to many of the regulations that would 
come out of the new Trump administration.
  There is no better time than now to reassert or allow to be 
reasserted the power of a Congress, a Congress that might very well 
reject President-elect Trump's legislation or regulations in the 
future.
  So the reality is, although the gentlewoman from Texas would have you 
believe that this was a personal attack on our President, it is not an 
attack on our President. It is not an attack on our next President.
  It is, in fact, a law that would allow Congress to reassert, in an 
efficient way, the authority which is constitutionally, inherently, and 
always ours.
  For decades, perhaps two centuries plus, we have yielded the power, 
the right, and the responsibility of this body in appropriations, in 
regulations, and even in spending of a number of areas in taxation to 
the executive branch. We can yield to the executive branch, but we 
cannot run away from our responsibility. A regulation--ten regulations, 
a hundred regulations, or a thousand regulations that are disapproved 
by the American people and, from them through us, needs to be dealt 
with in an efficient fashion.
  So do I disagree with this? Yes. Sadly, I disagree with the 
gentlewoman from Texas' characterization of the nature of this 
legislation. This legislation does not expire a few weeks or months 
from now, and it is intended to go on.
  Lastly, to say we have already passed legislation in this Congress 
would imply that it was run through the Senate and signed by the 
President and, as a result, the reform is in place. No such thing is 
the case.
  I would offer the gentlewoman from Texas in the next Congress to work 
with her on such legislation as would be signed by the next President.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains, please.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1 minute remaining, 
and the gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that the gentleman 
from California is a good friend. We have served on the Judiciary 
Committee for a period of time. I could not disagree with him more. 
Yes, a very poison pill bill passed out of the House, and it did not go 
any further, which I hope this one will not go any further as well.
  This bill is dangerous. It is a sweeping measure that would 
jeopardize the ability of the Federal Government to protect our Nation 
in times of urgent and imminent danger. Post-9/11, in the world we now 
live in, the role of the government in protecting its people has never 
been more important.
  Specifically, my amendment ensures that the Federal Government is not 
further prohibited from responding to emergencies, such as the 2013 
west Texas chemical explosion that killed 15 people and created a 
fireball that leveled nearly the entire town.
  This legislation wants to en bloc--not separate, analyze, or work 
with the administration--en bloc. Mr. Chair, what that means is to take 
the whole ball of wax--take the bag and wipe out regulations that may 
be helping to save lives and protect the American people.
  I have to disagree with, again, the gentleman from California. On 
Homeland Security, we deal with this all the time. On the Judiciary 
Committee, we deal with this all the time. I have to stand in the gap. 
We have to stand in the gap for the security of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 
amendment to protect the national security of this Nation.
  Thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain the Jackson Lee 
Amendment.
  Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment provides a limited exception 
from the provisions of H.R. 5982, the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act,'' of 
any administrative regulation or rule promulgated to prevent or respond 
to matters of critical national security.
  Mr. Chairman, if enacted in its current form, H.R. 5982, would 
severely hamper our nation's capacity to respond to public health 
emergencies or to address many other critical public policy matters 
relating to public safety or national security.
  H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to allow 
joint resolutions disapproving en bloc regulations submitted to 
Congress for CRA review within 60 days of the end of the presidential 
term.
  In particular, H.R. 5982 purports to address concerns associated with 
new regulations and rules that are issued as the clock of an outgoing 
presidential administration runs out--otherwise known as ``midnight 
rules.''
  This is a sweeping and dangerous measure that would jeopardize the 
ability of the federal government to protect our nation in times of 
urgent and imminent need.
  In the post-September 11th world we now live in, the role of the 
government in protecting its people has never been more important.''
  It is important that the Administration at all times retains the 
authority to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens from 
national security emergencies.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment does just that.
  Specifically, my amendment ensures that the federal government is not 
further prohibited from responding to emergencies, such as the 2013 
West, Texas chemical explosion that killed 15 people and created a 
fireball that leveled nearly the entire town.
  In response to this mass explosion, the President issued an Executive 
Order to necessary to improve the safety and security at chemical 
facility in West, Texas and across the nation.
  Recognizing the importance of responding to public health and safety 
emergencies, the Congressional Review Act specifically permits agencies 
to issue rules where the agency has good cause, such as responding to 
an emergency.
  However, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has clarified, 
this exception is only available where an agency has not already 
undertaken regulatory action.
  An exception substantively similar to the Jackson Lee Amendment 
appears in H.R. 4361, another bill that would establish a moratorium on 
``midnight rules'' that has already passed the House this Congress.
  We should include a similar exemption here to ensure that agencies 
retain the ability to effectively respond to urgent and pressing 
national security measures.
  Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of our 
regulatory agencies ability to address growing threats and active cases 
of public health crises.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment would ensure that any rule promulgated to 
prevent or respond to matters of national security would not be 
obstructed.
  Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment.

                    [From CNN, Tue., April 22, 2014]

  West, Texas, Fertilizer Plant Blast That Killed 15 ``Preventable,'' 
                           Safety Board Says

                       (By Eliott C. McLaughlin)

       The 2013 fertilizer plant blast that killed 15 people and 
     wounded another 226 in West, Texas, ``should never have 
     occurred,'' the chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board 
     said Tuesday.
       Though the board's report says that at least 14 people were 
     killed, the death toll was updated to 15 people in the days 
     after the blast. The board's investigation was released a few 
     days after the first anniversary of the explosion,

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I have served in this body for 
almost exactly 16 years; and I have observed the extremely rare times 
that a resolution of disapproval comes to this body. So I think if we 
can set a tone for the remainder of the debate, the tone should be set 
in recognition that these resolutions are rare. And they never--I 
repeat, never in my 16 years--and the gentlewoman and I have served a 
similar time--never have I seen one that is as well-founded as dealing 
with the safety of potentially explosives. Those kinds of regulations 
are routinely run through fairly quickly with congressional oversight 
and encouragement.
  So I think we have to set the tone and ask how many times--Ranking 
Member Conyers has served longer than anyone in this room--how many 
times have we brought these up. The fact is, even under this en bloc, 
it will be a small portion of those regulations created in the last 
days of an outgoing administration.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H6282]]

  

  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, my emotion, of course, deals with, as I 
think you know, many of the tragedies we have faced in the Nation.
  Here is my point: Your interpretation, I need to analyze all of that, 
and I have not to date. But I would say to you, there is always a first 
time. There is always the possibility. What we are trying to do is to 
make an exception if that happens to occur, and it might not. But we 
give that privilege so that the people can be protected.
  I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and let 
us continue that tone.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1015


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 114-818.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. 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 3, line 12, insert ``(A)'' before ``In applying''. 4
       Page 3, line 14, insert after ``one or more such rules'' 
     the following: ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 16, insert after ``President's term.'' the 
     following:
       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excepted 
     rule'' means a rule that the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget determines would have benefits that 
     exceed its cost.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleague consider his 
two amendments en bloc if he would. I would be happy to yield to make 
sure time is sufficient.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has been recognized for 
5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I have no objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California. Is it, from a parliamentary point of view, a 
possibility?
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would entertain a unanimous consent 
request from the proponent.


 Permission to Consider Amendment Nos. 4 and 5 Offered by Mr. Connolly 
                          of Virginia En Bloc

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
amendments pending, 4 and 5, be amalgamated into one for the purpose of 
debate on the floor instead of separate consideration.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Virginia to consider amendment Nos. 4 and 5 en bloc?
  There was no objection.


         Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I offer amendment Nos. 4 and 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-818.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

       Page 3, line 12, insert ``(A)'' before ``In applying''.
       Page 3, line 14, insert after ``one or more such rules'' 
     the following: ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 16, insert after ``President's term.'' the 
     following:
       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excepted 
     rule'' means a rule that the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget determines would have benefits that 
     exceed its cost.

          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

       Page 3, line 12, insert ``(A)'' before ``In applying''.
       Page 3, line 14, insert after ``one or more such rules'' 
     the following: ``(other than an excepted rule)''.
       Page 3, line 16, insert after ``President's term.'' the 
     following:
       (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``excepted 
     rule'' means a rule that addresses the harmful effects of 
     climate change.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 921, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, it seems this Congress will close out the 
114th session much the same as it opened. Then we considered H.R. 185, 
a repeat of the anti-public health, anti-environment, anti-public 
safety legislation that was defeated in the 112th and 113th Congresses 
and which would come to characterize, unfortunately, this Congress. So 
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that just before we adjourn, the 
House majority will offer one last retread of this social Darwinian 
philosophy.
  This latest iteration, the seductively titled Midnight Rules Relief 
Act, is nothing more than a retread, a backdoor attempt to roll back 
important steps to protect our constituents and our communities. My 
amendment would, at the very least, ensure we continue to take steps to 
mitigate the effects of climate change.
  Climate change already poses a real and growing threat to our 
children, our families, our national security, and our economy. Denying 
it exists doesn't make it so. I can tell you in my native State of 
Virginia, we are seeing the effects of climate change in low-lying 
areas, including in and around our all-important naval base in Norfolk.
  I know there are some who believe that the Clean Power Plan and 
similar rules which seek to curb climate change will crush the economy, 
but I will point out we have to listen to rhetoric all the time about 
job-killing regulations in the environment. The fact of the matter is 
Clean Air Act amendments and related amendments to protect our air and 
our water have, in fact, created jobs and, with respect to power rates, 
have, in fact, lowered power rates in large parts of the country, 
including my own in Virginia.
  Turning my attention, Mr. Chairman, to the second amendment 
amalgamated, this bill once again amends the Congressional Review Act 
to allow a joint resolution disapproving en bloc regulations. The title 
of the bill leads one to believe that the period of coverage spans the 
waning hours of a Presidency when, in fact, according to the 
nonpartisan CRS, 60 legislative days takes us back to May of 2016, 
before we even confirmed our final Presidential candidates.
  The Congressional Review Act already permits Congress to disapprove 
of regulations. This bill is nothing more than a partisan attempt to 
prevent the implementation of critical laws by our Federal Government 
to delegitimize President Obama's final months in office. I think it is 
unwise. I think it is imprudent. I think just like leaving a vacancy on 
the Supreme Court for an entire year on the dubious theory that a 
President in his last year of office ought to be somehow a lameduck in 
every respect as if he had not legitimately been elected by the people 
of this country is certainly, I think, false logic, false 
constitutional logic, and dangerous to the functioning of a republic.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, on this en bloc pair of amendments, I have 
two very different reasons for objecting. In the case of the portion 
that is the Director of Office of Management and Budget, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and I spent an amazing

[[Page H6283]]

amount of time over the years looking at times in which OMB makes an 
estimate and then the reality is dramatically different.
  So to carve out based on the Office of Management and Budget, which 
is a Cabinet-level, partisan appointment of the President, would have 
one believe that it is perfect. The reality is not only is it not 
perfect, but its track record tends to be very self-serving. Just the 
amount of times in which CBO scores very differently would cause all of 
us to know that this is not a good enough reason for a carve-out.
  Having said that, I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Virginia on both CBO and OMB scoring reform in the next Congress 
because I think we have a long way to go to get numbers right. If we 
get numbers right on both regulations and proposed laws, we can all do 
a better job.
  In the case of the second portion of these two, I have to say that 
climate change has been unfairly made a political issue. The world is 
getting warmer; we know that. How much of it is caused by various 
things, we need to know, and I would hope that regulations would not be 
a source of that. But this President has, by many of his own 
statements, taken great credit for his use of a pen and a phone to make 
decisions related to his view of a single cause of climate change, that 
being carbon.
  The fact is I look forward to working with any President on sensible 
regulations, but those regulations have to be consistent with the laws 
passed and the regulatory options given to the other branch. It is for 
that reason that we have the ability to disapprove.
  So again, I would hope we all not look at specific regulations that 
may or may not be contested by the next Congress and, instead, look 
more appropriately at should we have the efficiency to consider maybe 
20, maybe 10, maybe only 4 en bloc, all as one, or maybe in two 
separate. The reality is efficiency of the process of disapproval does 
not for a moment change the responsibility and authority of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on my 
side.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I take my friend from California's point 
about data. Let's look at OMB's latest report to Congress on Federal 
regulation which found that the monetized benefits of Federal 
regulations over the past decade are significantly higher, by a 10 to 1 
margin, than their cost. That is their report. It is an inconvenient 
fact, but there it is.
  I will finally end, Mr. Chairman, because I want to be respectful of 
my friend's intent here in trying to amalgamate these two amendments.
  I am sorry, this is another bill in the long process of trying to 
delegitimize President Obama's Presidency, and it, to me, is a shameful 
episode where some of my friends on the other side of the aisle--not 
necessarily Mr. Issa--have attempted to basically nullify his ability 
to function as President, and therefore he has had to rely on executive 
powers in the absence of legislative action and thwarting.
  I think the most egregious one besides this bill is, of course, 
leaving a vacancy open on the Supreme Court under the very dubious 
logic that somehow he is not entitled in the last year. That logic 
leads every single Member of Congress basically to not do anything in 
the second year here in the House because the same logic would pertain 
to them. They are lameducks until they are reelected or until the will 
of the people is heard in the next election cycle. That is, to me, 
foolish logic, dangerous logic, and I think it will put a cloud over 
the next President's tenure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ISSA. I won't use it all. I thank the chairman, and I thank my 
colleague from Virginia. Let me take a moment to reflect, perhaps, on 
something that my colleague and friend said.
  During my tenure with Mr. Connolly, our committee sent 23 pieces of 
legislation to the President that he signed; we sent 74 to the other 
body. So if there is an enemy, perhaps it is the great bipartisan 
legislation that left the House and never got to the President. The 
President signed all 23 pieces of legislation, though, that got through 
the Senate, including legislation that Mr. Connolly and I worked on 
together.
  Since my leaving that committee, additional legislation has come 
through that committee on a bipartisan basis, including a huge 
expansion of the Freedom of Information Act. I would hope that in these 
last days, we would reflect on the successes of this Congress and the 
successes of our outgoing President because, in fact, for all that we 
all do in the performance of our oversight role, we also have had fine 
and notable successes and good legislation under this President; and I 
would like to take this moment to take note that, in fact, the 
President has signed the vast majority of legislation that left here on 
a bipartisan basis, including a piece of legislation that Mr. Connolly 
was critical on.
  I yield to the gentleman if he has any further comment.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I am struck by a humorous observation when he talks about what 
happened in the other body to a lot of legislation. I believe it may 
have been Sam Rayburn who said, as a Democratic Speaker, the 
Republicans are in the opposition but the Senate is the enemy.
  Mr. Chairman, I, of course, meant no disrespect. I was simply quoting 
a former Speaker of this body.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia will be postponed.
  Mr. ISSA. 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. 
Valadao) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dold, 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. 5982) to 
amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc 
consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________