Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 165 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)

[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 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:

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

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.

____________________