Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H74-H86]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT OF 2017

General Leave

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 21.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5(b) of House
Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 21) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution
5, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 21

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
2017''.

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 SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Federal bureaucrats are continuously creating new and
more complicated and costly burdens on hardworking Americans in the
form of unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Clearly, some regulation
is necessary to protect public safety, set general rules of the road,
and accomplish other important goals.
However, despite the fact that these goals can often be accomplished
with relatively simple guidance, Washington bureaucrats seem more
determined than ever to create the most complicated puzzles they can
imagine, regardless of the compliance costs for small businesses or the
new and innovative products entrepreneurs are forced to shelve in order
to comply with these overly complicated regulations.
Bureaucrats also don't seem to care that American families face
higher prices for goods and have fewer job opportunities when employers
are unnecessarily forced to factor wasteful costs of complying with
overly burdensome regulations into their bottom lines.
That is why, at the very beginning of the 115th Congress, we are
prioritizing legislation to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Doing so is one of the fundamental steps we can take to make America
more competitive again

[[Page H75]]

and put more Americans back to work again.
Today, our specific focus is on reforming regulations that are
hastily cobbled together in the waning weeks and months of an outgoing
administration. These regulations are particularly susceptible to abuse
and, thus, have an even greater potential to undermine job
opportunities, wages, and American competitiveness.
As the Obama administration rushes to a close, Americans' freedom and
prosperity are increasingly 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.
When the House considered this legislation in the wake of last
November's election, the administration had issued or planned 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.
In the intervening weeks, these figures have rapidly ballooned to the
226 midnight rules issued or planned. During just the week of December
12, the administration issued 18 midnight regulations, imposing over $2
billion in new costs. 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 an effective solution
to this problem for some time, and I applaud our colleague, Mr. Issa,
for offering the Midnight Rules Relief Act to respond to the need. This
bill offers 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 will surely hesitate much more before
abusing midnight rules. Further, once enabled to dispatch 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
category 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.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual measure that is being brought forward
under unusual circumstances. To begin with, this measure would, believe
it or not, empower our Federal legislature to undo virtually every
regulation submitted to the Congress since mid-June of last year
through the end of 2016 last year. The bill accomplishes this--every
regulation--by authorizing Congress to disapprove these rules through a
single joint resolution, thereby depriving Members to consider the
merits of each individual regulation. This presents a number of
problems.

{time} 1345

As the administration has stated, with a threat of veto of an
identical bill that was considered last November, the legislation
``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.''
This, in my view, is a cynical way of trying to legislate. For those
concerned about the continued improvement of clean air and clean water,
if we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we
care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me. There hasn't been any deliberative
process on the bill recently. It is amazing to me that we have such
opposition to the bill. It would be overwhelming to put in the over 150
labor organizations, consumer organizations, environmental
organizations, and others who have openly asked us to oppose this bill.
If that isn't enough, we have the business community itself in
opposition. The American Sustainable Business Council, which represents
over 200,000 businesses--and I have a partial list of them--also
opposes this measure. It is one of the rare instances in which I have
brought to the floor legislation that is opposed by both labor and by
business as well.
It is a little bit of an insult that this bill is being considered,
on top of that, under a closed rule. There can be no amendments to this
measure.
I am in a state of surprise that on the second day of a new Congress
we would come forward with a measure that could potentially jeopardize
public health and safety in so many different ways.
I think that the opposition to this measure is so overwhelming that I
am surprised that without hearings, without an opportunity for
amendment, we are now considering a measure that has this much
opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Consumer Reports
dated January 3, 2017.

Consumer Reports,

Washington, DC, January 3, 2017.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Consumer Reports and its policy and
mobilization arm, Consumers Union, strongly urge you to vote
no on H.R. 21, the so-called ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.''
This bill would severely undermine accountability to the
public regarding important protections and safeguards.
Although the rules targeted by this legislation were
finalized relatively recently, many have been under
development for several years. Consumers Union has provided
public comment on several of these regulations that were
designed to protect consumers against unsafe products,
dishonest business dealings, and other hazards in the
marketplace that place their health, safety, or well-being at
risk. Agency experts carefully examined these hazards and
considered various alternative approaches to address them.
They sought input and guidance from businesses, consumer
organizations, outside scientific and legal experts, and the
public at

[[Page H76]]

large, and ultimately developed final rules, explaining
publicly the basis and rationale for the adopted approach.
The federal law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
already permits a regulation carefully developed over many
years to be erased by Congress, in a rushed process that does
not reflect the same level of expertise or careful
consideration. Congress could even rescind a rule for reasons
that might be based not on any broader interests of the
public, but on the narrower, private special interests of
those seeking to avoid having appropriate obligations imposed
on their profit-making activities.
The potential for the CRA to be employed in the service of
special interests is at least somewhat held in check by the
fact that the law currently requires separate congressional
action for erasing each regulation. A regulation considered
for erasure under the CRA must be brought to the House and
Senate in its own separate resolution, given its own debate
and vote, and sent to the President for its own signature or
veto. All officials involved in considering whether to erase
the regulation and its protections are thus put on record,
and can be held accountable for their positions and the
consequences. Perhaps for this reason, there has only been
one regulation rescinded under the CRA in its 20-year
history.
This important accountability check would be removed under
the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' By allowing erasure of
multiple regulations en bloc, this bill would enable Members
of Congress and the President to evade public accountability
for what Gould be ill-considered, politically motivated
decisions that result in devastating consequences. Under the
bill, no Member would ever have to be on record regarding any
specific regulation being erased. In fact, any Member who
actually wants to cast a more selective vote, to erase
certain regulations but not others, would be unable to do so.
We are somewhat encouraged that the House Majority, after
initially acting behind closed doors to weaken the Office of
Congressional Ethics, has reversed course in light of major
concerns raised about the impact on congressional
accountability. We urge all Members to also recognize the
damaging effects that this bill would have on accountability
and on the ability of the American public to trust their
elected representatives. We strongly urge you to vote no on
the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.''
Sincerely,
Laura MacCleery,
Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization Consumer
Reports.
George P. Slover,
Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
William C. Wallace,
Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Midnight Rules Relief Act.
Recently, impossible opportunities exist for this body to reassert
its authority and work on behalf of the American people. The Midnight
Rules Relief Act would provide Congress with an important tool to begin
the process of dismantling the onerous regulatory burdens imposed over
the past 8 years.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial
and Antitrust Law, I have dedicated considerable time over the past 2
years to closely monitoring the growth of the administrative state. The
estimated regulatory costs across all years of the Obama administration
are staggering. However, the regulatory onslaught in its final year
alone--disastrous--shows the damage already done and the greater impact
that will fall on our economy.
In 2016, 401 regulations were finalized. The total compliance cost
for this period exceeds $164 billion and amounts to nearly 121 million
paperwork hours. That is 401 regulations and $164 billion. This is only
during the final year of the Obama administration. It is no wonder that
the American people sought a new, more promising direction for our
country.
Finally, the Congress has an opportunity to act to protect the
American people and repeal many of these crushing regulations. For us
in Congress, we cannot forget what these numbers represent. For my
constituents and for Americans across the country, the billions in
dollars of costs imposed on the economy represent jobs lost, routine
bills that cannot be paid, and the American Dream slipping from their
grasp.
The true story of this regulatory onslaught is told by workers at
shuttered stores, factories, and power plants across the country. Their
concerns and fears are ours. As this current administration exits, we
must remain vigilant to last-ditch efforts at crippling our economy.
On top of those in recent months, a number of new regulations may
still be finalized in a hurried, nontransparent fashion. The American
people are concerned that our current regulatory process ignores the
balancing of costs and benefits and the regulatory impact on their
lives. From what we have seen over the past 8 years, it is clear that
they should be.
Starting this week, Congress has an opportunity to reassert its
constitutional authority and act for all Americans. The Midnight Rules
Relief Act is a well-advised measure that gives Congress the ability to
quickly examine and eliminate the mass of regulations promulgated in
recent months. This has been done by both Republican and Democrat
administrations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior colleague, to speak on the measure before
us.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21, the Midnight Rules
Relief Act.
This irresponsible legislation would enable Congress to wipe out
hundreds, or even thousands, of regulations enacted during the final
year of the President's term in office, in one fell swoop, with little
examination, no deliberation, and little regard to their impact on
public health or safety.
Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed concern in recent
years over rules adopted during a Presidential transition period--
typically, the last 60 to 90 days of the President's term. But this
legislation differs greatly from previous legislation that I and others
have introduced in the past to deal with this problem.
For example, the Midnight Rule Act, which I introduced in the 110th
and 111th Congresses, would have merely delayed the implementation of
rules submitted to Congress within the final 90 days of a President's
term, with appropriate exceptions for imminent threat to health and
safety, enforcement of criminal laws, implementation of an
international trade agreement, and national security.
This proposal was a response to concerns with last-minute rulemaking
under the George W. Bush administration, which was roundly criticized
at the time for allowing insufficient time for public comment, ignoring
public comments, and otherwise departing from accepted rulemaking
practices.
My bill would have given an incoming President 90 days to determine
if any rules issued should not go forward. This measure would have
allowed legitimate regulatory reform to proceed on schedule while
putting the power to review and overturn controversial new rules into
the hands of the newly elected administration.
The legislation before us today, however, goes much further and
creates a process to simply erase the last months of an outgoing
administration's regulatory agenda.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can overturn a
regulation issued by the executive branch through a disapproval
resolution that must be signed by the President. This bill would allow
Congress to package these disapproval resolutions together and
eliminate dozens, hundreds, or even thousands, of regulations all at
once, with little debate over the merits of any individual rule.
Under the CRA, agencies would be prevented from proposing similar
rules ever again, absent explicit congressional authorization. You
would have a rule terminated with no debate because it is one of a
thousand rules done away with in one resolution. You can't even look at
it again.
The Republican majority has waged an all-out assault on the
regulatory process, trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the ability to
issue regulations that protect public health and safety. Not content to
grind the gears of rulemaking to a halt, they now want to
eliminate wholesale those regulations that have gone through the
exhaustive rulemaking process--a process that often takes many years to
complete.

Even more concerning, this bill would apply to rules issued in the
last 60 legislative days of a President's

[[Page H77]]

term. Not calendar days, but legislative days.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. NADLER. Given how little we worked last year, this would mean
that any regulation issued by the Obama administration, stretching back
to June 13, 2016, could be canceled in one sweeping motion, with hardly
any consideration given to the merits of any individual regulation.
Article II of the Constitution provides that a President shall serve
a 4-year term. But the Republicans seem to believe that this doesn't
apply to President Obama. Somehow, when he was reelected by broad
majority in 2012, he was given only a 3-year term. The Senate refused
to consider a Supreme Court nominee and, under this bill, his entire
regulatory agenda for the last 6 months could be undone in an instant.
While I am sympathetic to the need for an incoming administration to
review regulations issued in the closing days of an outgoing
administration, this bill goes much further and allows for a rushed and
partisan process that could undermine critical health and safety
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible and
dangerous legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, floor debate is both for the people in the room and the
people watching.
Many of the new Members have not yet voted on a substantive piece of
legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I reach out with a little piece of
history--a large piece of history, perhaps--for the freshmen of both
parties.
First of all, this legislation is bipartisan. It is sponsored by both
Republicans and Democrats.
Second of all, when Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and I were 16 years
younger, in March of 2001, it was the last and only time that the
underlying law allowed for a regulation to be repealed. It was
prominently called ergonomics. It was repealed. I had the honor of
voting for that as a freshman.
Since that time, in spite of the many regulations that some people
don't like in one party or another, we have not seen fit to have a
joint resolution repeal a regulation.
So let's talk about what it takes to do that. It takes both Houses of
the Congress and the President of the United States to repeal a
regulation created by a bureaucrat, or many bureaucrats--a regulation
that may or may not be consistent with the law passed by this body, by
the Senate, and by a President in this or a previous Congress.
Again, for the freshmen, we are the body that creates laws, and we do
so through a complex and difficult procedure. We pass it out of the
House or Senate. We then pass it out of the other body. If the
President signs it, it then still is subject to court challenge.

{time} 1400

Now, let's go through the regulatory process: Proposed by a
bureaucrat, given a period of time in which dissenters may be 100
percent, and still it becomes law if this body does not act. So now
that gives you a little feel for the underlying law. Used once on a
bipartisan basis to take back an unpopular regulation that has never
been resubmitted under both 8 years of a Republican and 8 years of a
Democrat in the White House, and I repeat, the regulation that was
previously recalled was so in error that it has never been redone in 16
years by two Presidents.
Now, let's talk about the bill we have before us today. We all know
that the House is a body that, when it wants to, can move fairly
quickly, and the Senate is a body that seemingly moves quickly only in
recess. The fact is that the Senate takes a long time, and we have many
regulations that may or may not be considered now or in the future.
All this legislation does is allow for us to dispose of one or more
regulations in an expedited fashion in this body and have it seen in
the same form in the Senate. Nothing more than that. It doesn't change
the underlying law. It doesn't change the fact that the House, the
Senate, and a President must concur on taking back what is essentially
a law--that is what a regulation is--created by bureaucrats not elected
by any of us. So let's keep it as simple as that.
For the freshmen of either party, when you go to make a vote on this,
remember, we are not changing the underlying law. Only one regulation
under the underlying law has ever been repealed, and it was bipartisan
in both the House and the Senate when it was repealed. It has been 16
years, and the few that will likely be considered under this act and
the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few regulations that
are believed to be unnecessary and for which the House, the Senate, and
the President concur.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
passage of the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017, H.R. 21.
Let's not get it twisted. This is a mundane area that we are in,
administrative review processes and how we are going to deal with
regulations coming out of Federal agencies. This is a mundane topic,
but it has real world implications.
The bottom line is this is not a jobs bill. The American people sent
Congress here to work on jobs and to work on economic security for
Americans, and the first item of business out of this brand-new
Congress is to gut the House Office of Congressional Ethics. Now, why
would they want to do that? It was because they liked the idea of the
fox guarding the henhouse. They wanted to put themselves in control
over the henhouse once again, and the American people called them on
it, and so they had to withdraw it.
So what do they do? Today they come back with not a jobs bill but a
regulatory bill, an antiregulatory bill, something that protects the
health, safety, welfare, and well-being of Americans--little ones,
elderly, workers, people who are consumers. They want to gut
regulations.
Now, what regulations do they want to gut? They will tell you, by the
way, that gutting regulations helps to enhance job creation, but
nothing can be further from the truth when you consider that under the
last 8 years of President Obama, where we have had regulatory regimes
established under the Affordable Care Act and also Dodd-Frank, we have
created 15.6 million new jobs over 81 straight months of private sector
job growth. Unemployment is now approaching 4 percent, which is
basically full employment. And wages are going up for Americans. And so
despite the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, you have got Americans
that are prospering.
What do the Republicans want to do? They try to trick you into
believing that they are going to create more jobs by removing
regulations. What regulations do they want to do away with? It is the
Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. So they want to reward their
campaign contributors, Wall Street fat cats, with this legislation that
will enable them to create conditions that will be similar to the ones
that President Obama inherited when he walked into the Presidency 8
years ago. And you can't fail to remember how bleak and bad the economy
was.
The economy was in the tank. President Obama brought it back. Dodd-
Frank brought it back. And millions--20 million more Americans now have
health insurance than they had back then. And the cost of premiums for
working people who had insurance through their jobs, the rate of
increase has gone to the lowest level over the last 50-plus years. That
is real benefits.
What the Republicans want to do, they have said they are going to
repeal and replace ObamaCare. They don't have anything to replace it
with. They just simply want to repeal it, and that is the regulation
that they seek to get at with this bill, H.R. 21, Midnight Rules Relief
Act of 2017. This is an attempt to bring the standard of living that
Americans have come to enjoy to a halt. It is going to impact
negatively our ability to be secure in our personal finances.
New data from the American Community Survey indicates that the number
of uninsured Americans continues

[[Page H78]]

to decline every year. What happens when our rural hospitals close and
when all the people from throughout the State have to converge on the
emergency rooms of the urban hospitals, and it is uncompensated care?
Who pays for it? You pay for it.
Let's not get this legislation twisted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute of my time to
the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This is an attack on your ideals. I ask that
my colleagues vote against this legislation.
Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I won't be long. There is nothing mundane about what we
are doing here. Every day in America, Congress passes a law maybe, but
every working day in America, the bureaucracy passes regulations. The
fact is, the American people know that the so-called regulatory state
that has developed during the last half century means that, whether
Congress is in session or not, new laws are being created, new rules
that cause people in real America, working people and their companies,
to have to figure out what new hurdle they have to jump over just to
earn a living.
That is what we are talking about here, that at least when those are
grossly exceeded under the underlying law and intention of Congress,
Congress--the House, the Senate--in concert with the President, may, in
fact, use the same tool, essentially the making of law, in this case to
rescind to law.
I just want to again speak to the younger Members who may not know
the history of this. All we are really talking about here in this act
is, in fact, a law created to take away a regulation. What we are going
to vote on will allow for, one, two, half a dozen regulations, if there
were that many that we think are wrong, through our normal lawmaking
process, in many ways, to be rescinded. The House has to vote a
majority, the Senate has to vote a majority, and the President has to
sign it. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between that and
any other legislative business that we do here.
Now, I have worked with John Conyers both as a minority member and as
my chairman. He is a good man. In this case, I believe that if he
looked more broadly at the question of Congress' responsibility to
review laws made outside of this body that he would support me.
Notwithstanding not getting his support in this case, we do have both
Republicans and Democrats on this bill. I expect that on the vote, in
both the House and the Senate, it will be bipartisan, and any piece of
regulatory law that would come before this body and the Senate, I am
confident, would have bipartisan support in order to rescind a bad
regulation.
So I think for those who are concerned about the regulations somehow
running amok, no regulation will be rescinded under this law any
different than any normal piece of legislation passed out of the House
and the Senate and signed by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California for
pointing out how innocent this measure is, and I am astounded by his
feeling that regulations shouldn't be examined one by one. Under this
measure, 61 regulations could be considered en bloc. To me, just trying
to put together two regulations to revoke them would be very, very hard
to handle.
What we are talking about here is a bill that would provide special
interests with yet another opportunity to block critical lifesaving
regulations, and I want to say I have never had so much opposition to a
bill brought to my attention before. 150 environmental organizations,
consumer organizations, and labor organizations have urged the Members
of this body to oppose H.R. 21. It is incredible. And then not only are
workers and consumers against this measure as well as
environmentalists, businesspeople are against it as well.
I feel like there is some missing part to this thing. The American
Sustainable Business Council has over 200,000 businesses. So here is
labor and commerce combined, urging Congress not to do this on the
second day of a new Congress with all the challenges that are before
us, and he says it wouldn't create any problems. It would be okay to
put in 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 60. This is
incredible. It is not that we are working so hard that we don't have
time to examine each one on a particular basis.

{time} 1415

Can you imagine this Congress trying to block regulations which would
be offered in one bill that could be over 60 different regulations? I
mean, it is unthinkable. It is not very practical at all.
When we talk about meat labeling regulations and then in another
paragraph or another section there would be standards for school lunch
nutrition, they would be combined. My friend from California would say,
well, that is no problem. We will take them separately, but they will
all come in the same package.
So if you wanted to examine all of these things individually, we
could have an instance where the whole Congress could be consumed for
weeks or for months trying to figure out why they should block all of
these important and sensible safeguards.
Business and labor are joined with us, and, to me, it is beyond
comprehension for us to be concerned about not taking them up one at a
time. This is worse than a conservative point of view, which I haven't
found myself often agreeing with. But just to say let's have unlimited
numbers of these blocking provisions all into one is beyond my
comprehension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cohen), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and chairman in
the past, my chairman.
This bill has come up over many years when I served on this
subcommittee and was the ranking member and the chair at one time. Mr.
Issa suggested it might only be six or seven regulations. If that was
the case, they could take them individually.
There is a process where regulations can be brought before the House,
in the Congressional Review Act, and each one studied individually, and
the House could overrule them. I can't fathom that they are bringing
this bill for just six regulations which they could do individually.
But even then, that is wrong to put them all together. We know what is
going to happen is they are going to pass. They are going to pass the
House. Whether they pass the Senate is another issue.
These are not midnight regulations. These are regulations that go
back to last June. So the term ``midnight regulations'' is a misnomer.
To say that these are just decisions made by bureaucrats, you would
think bureaucrats were something out of a medical dictionary that was
highly contagious. Bureaucrats could also be called experts,
specialists, dedicated government officials.
There are people who study these issues that, to be implemented, need
to be fine-tuned to fit into society, sometimes to protect consumers,
sometimes to protect commerce, and it takes years and years and years,
often, for these regulations to take effect. Some of them protect
animals--the soring industry.
A great majority of this House was in favor of a bill to protect
walking horses, but it didn't get a vote because there were some people
in this House that were against it and against it so much that they
worked to get one of the finest Members I have served with, Ed
Whitfield, out of this House. That was despicable. I suspect that same
power that might have had that effect could bring that type of
regulation up to be nullified. I would fear that, and I would find it
wrong in the spirit of Ed Whitfield and fairness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. COHEN. I like Ed Whitfield a lot. A lot of us did. He was a great
guy. It was wrong, what happened, the way he was forced out because a
majority of this House wanted a vote on that and it could be put in
this regulation and it would go.
Tobacco regulations, toys, protections for children, all potentially
in jeopardy, as well as other regulations protecting four-legged
friends.

[[Page H79]]

I can imagine when this comes up and the decision is made which bills
to put into this omnibus bill, you are going to have lots of lobbyists
coming and wanting the bills that affect them adversely, their industry
is put in it, and you are going to have fundraisers right around it. It
is going to be a fundraising trough for the Republicans to use and
bidding basically on who wants to have their regulation put in our bill
and have it nullified. The nullification acts back in the 1830s with
John Calhoun are back, not the midnight judges of President Adams.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Tennessee has been a good friend on many issues. I
know he is passionate about regulations and laws that he would like to
have passed, and so am I.
All of us in Congress have seen that it is extremely easy--the longer
you are here, the more you will see it--it is extremely easy to stop
something here. The same is true about those 61 or so regulations. Any
combining of regulations, unless they are overwhelmingly disapproved,
actually makes them harder to pass. We are not going to put 61 pieces
of legislation, each of which has at least one or two or three or a
dozen Republicans who vehemently oppose that regulation being
rescinded. The fact is it is only the worst of the worst that are going
to be stayed through this process and then reevaluated by the new
administration.
I will mention, though, for my colleagues on the other side of this
debate today, that we do appropriations every year. The American
people, and for the freshmen who haven't voted on appropriations yet,
think of appropriations as somehow different than the law. It really
isn't. Appropriation is simply a law that provides funding.
Every appropriation bill during the entire nearly 8 years of
President Obama has been some form of a continuing resolution or an
omnibus. But as my colleague from Tennessee knows, every one of those
has had dozens to hundreds of laws attached to them. We call them
riders. We have terms for them. The fact is that a single
appropriations bill, often done just before the end of funding of the
government, always--always--has dozens, if not hundreds, of laws
attached to it.

So the idea that we don't group together things which are relatively
noncontroversial, that will cause someone to still vote for the bill in
spite of it being in there, would be to be dishonest to the freshmen
who need to know that we do for efficiency bring together things that
we can pass en bloc, and we do it all the time--and even major
legislation. I dare say, the Affordable Care Act and others are, in
fact, multiple pieces of legislation put together in one package.
So lest our freshmen who are about to take their first vote on a
piece of legislation--or one that could have a major impact--
misunderstand, bringing together multiple pieces into one bill is
common, but it is always done in order to gain votes or to maintain
votes. In fact, you do it at your folly if you lose votes.
I would say to my friend and colleague from Michigan that there is no
likelihood that 61 pieces of regulation will be put together because
there is no chance that there would be 61 pieces that even all
Republicans would agree should be revoked. I would imagine the number
would be less. I suspect that if my bill said 2 or 5 or 10, it would
still be opposed for the same reason, which is that it creates
inefficiency if there are multiple generally agreed bad pieces of
legislation that need to be considered.
Lastly, and I am not closing, but I think this may be one of my
closing remarks, for freshmen to understand, this isn't even about the
House. We have the procedures in the House where we could put these
together. This is about the Senate that can take 60 hours, 60
legislative hours or more, to do one piece of legislation. We know that
the Senate has confirmations to do of judges and appointees for the
Cabinet, and they have other legislative work, and we cannot afford to
have them backed up now or in the future if there are multiple
regulations that need to be rescinded.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who, up until recently, was a very active member
of the House Judiciary Committee. He is now the ranking member on the
Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21,
the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which amends the Congressional
Review Act. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overrule
regulations promulgated by the executive branch. That law expects a
deliberative approach to considering each and every rule.
H.R. 21 would allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to
simultaneously disapprove of multiple regulations all at once when such
rules are issued in the last 60 legislative days of a session of
Congress during the final year of a President's term. In this case, the
60 legislative days reach-back would apply to rules issued as far back
as June of last year, almost 7 months before the end of the President's
term. To call rules issued that long ago a midnight rule is a
particular misnomer.
This bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to eliminate rules,
many of which have been under development for years--or even decades--
to protect consumers, working families, and students. This bill denies
Congress the opportunity for a careful, individualized, case-by-case
review that is appropriate for a reasoned, decisionmaking legislative
body.
Under the Congressional Review Act, if a rule is eliminated, such
rule can never be taken up again in similar form without additional
legislation overriding the restriction, even if the undesirable rule
turns out, upon further reflection, to have been the best alternative.
Some of the rules that could be impacted that are just under the
jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee include the
Department of Labor's rule requiring Federal contractors to provide up
to 7 days of paid sick leave annually for their employees; the upcoming
OSHA rule, which has been under development for 18 years, which would
protect workers from exposure to beryllium, a metal that can cause lung
disease, resulting in a victim essentially suffocating to death; the
Department of Education's rule involving the borrower's defense, which
helps student borrowers who are defrauded by their universities; and
the Department of Education's K-12 accountability rule, which involves
the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, making sure that
all students can graduate ready for success for college and career.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. H.R. 21 is poised to allow wholesale
undermining of critical protections for students, workers, taxpayers,
and consumers. I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1430

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' Midnight
Rules Relief Act.
The bill is an unnecessary abdication of legislative responsibility
by the Republican-led Congress, and it is very poor public policy. The
bill short-circuits open debate and public participation. It is also
very wasteful because it jettisons carefully and long-crafted policies
that protect American families from threats to their economic security,
their health, and their safety.
Under the U.S. Constitution, after Congress passes a law, agencies
craft rules to implement that legislation. If Members of Congress want
to clarify or change executive branch regulations, they have a
responsibility to address the matter in a transparent way and through
open, regular order. Republicans don't want to do that, however,

[[Page H80]]

because the public might find out what they are doing.
This Republican scheme sets a dangerous precedent by expanding the
ability of the Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to
disapprove hundreds of carefully crafted policies at one time and with
very little notice or debate. Republicans want to reach back to last
May and cherry-pick policies that they do not agree with.
But how will the public know?
That will be difficult; and, in many instances, Republicans do not
want the public to know.
I urge my colleagues to reject this power grab by the new Republican
Congress. It is just like what they tried to do yesterday with the
Office of Congressional Ethics. These policies don't just come out of
thin air. There is a long, painstaking process with extensive public
comment. Public participation doesn't appear to be a priority in this
new Congress, so reject this dark bill. Side, instead, with our
democratic principles in America, which include open debate,
transparency, fiscal responsibility, and the security of our neighbors.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman from Florida, I am sure, is well intended, but there
is nothing more transparent than calling up to the floor of this House
and debating the removal of regulations that have been found to be
excessive or extreme or simply not consistent with the law. That is a
transparent process. The term ``regular order,'' in fact, could not be
more appropriate to that process. We passed a law nearly three
Presidents ago, if you will, that simply called for this procedure.
All I am saying is we should not be mired down, if there are five or
six or eight bad regulations, in not combining them together for
purposes of getting them disposed of in a timely fashion. I might
suggest to everyone that they remember that many of us did not support
the regulation change yesterday as to the ethics oversight, because we
do believe in transparency and will continue to believe in
transparency.
Again, nothing is more transparent than bringing to the House floor
the debate about something that is believed to have been wrong done by
unelected bureaucrats. ``Bureaucrat'' is not a dirty word, but
``unelected'' fits this process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a CRS Report that
highlights the fact that it would be permissible under this proposed
bill that as many as 61 regulations could be bundled into one package
and blocked by this bill.

Congressional Research Service,

January 3, 2017.

Memorandum

Subject: ``Major'' Obama Administration Rules Potentially
Eligible to be Overturned under the Congressional Review
Act in the 115th Congress.
From: Maeve P. Carey, Specialist in Government Organization
and Management; Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress
and the Legislative Process; Casey Burgat, Research
Assistant.
This memorandum lists ``major'' rules issued by federal
agencies under the Barack Obama Administration that are
potentially subject to consideration under the procedures of
the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in the 115th Congress.
This is an updated version of a general distribution
memorandum released by CRS on November 17, 2016, and
previously updated on December 6, 2016.

Background on the Congressional Review Act

The CRA is a tool that Congress may use to overturn a rule
issued by a federal agency, including, in some cases, rules
issued in a previous session of Congress and by a previous
President. The CRA requires agencies to report on their
rulemaking activities to Congress and provides Congress with
a special set of procedures under which to consider
legislation to overturn those rules. The CRA, which was
enacted in 1996, was largely intended to assert control over
agency rulemaking by establishing a special set of expedited
or ``fast track'' legislative procedures for this purpose,
primarily in the Senate.
Of the approximately 73,000 final rules that have been
submitted to Congress since the legislation was enacted in
1996, the CRA has been used to disapprove one rule: the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's November 2000
final rule on ergonomics, which was overturned using the CRA
in March 2001. The primary reason the CRA has overturned one
rule in the 20 years since its enactment is that under most
circumstances, it is likely that a President would veto such
a resolution in order to protect rules developed under his
own administration, and it may also be difficult for Congress
to muster the two-thirds vote in both houses needed to
overturn the veto. However, under a specific set of
circumstances--a turnover in party control of the White
House, particularly a turnover in which the incoming
President shares a party affiliation with a majority in both
houses of Congress--the CRA is more likely to be used
successfully. The March 2001 rejection of the ergonomics rule
was the result of that set of circumstances. Similar
circumstances will take place in 2017 after the start of the
115th Congress and after President-elect Donald J. Trump is
sworn into office.

CRA ``Reset'' Mechanism

Section 801(d) of the CRA provides that, if Congress
adjourns its annual session sine die less than 60 legislative
days in the House of Representatives or 60 session days in
the Senate after a rule is submitted to it, then the periods
to submit and act on a disapproval resolution ``reset'' in
their entirety in the next session of Congress'' The purpose
of this provision is to ensure that both houses of Congress
have sufficient time to consider disapproving rules submitted
during this end-of-session ``carryover period.'' This
provision applies in every session of Congress, but it is of
particular relevance in sessions of Congress that coincide
with presidential transitions. This provision allows, for a
limited time period, a new Congress to consider a joint
resolution disapproving a rule issued late in the previous
administration. If introduced and considered at the proper
time, such a joint resolution cannot be filibustered in the
Senate.
The projected second-session meeting schedules of the House
and Senate issued by each chamber's majority leader may be
used to estimate the date in 2016 after which final rules
submitted to Congress will be subject to the renewed review
periods in 2017 described above. The estimated start of the
reset period for all rules was determined by counting back
from the projected sine die adjournment in the respective
chambers--60 days of session in the Senate and 60 legislative
days in the House--then taking the earlier of the two dates.
Under this calculation, CRS estimates that agency final
rules submitted to Congress on or after June 13, 2016, will
be subject to renewed review periods in 2017 by a new
President and a new Congress. CRS day count estimates are
unofficial and non-binding; the House and Senate
Parliamentarians are the sole definitive arbiters of the
operation of the CRA mechanism and should be consulted if a
formal opinion is desired.

``Major'' Obama Administration Rules Potentially Eligible for
Consideration under the CRA in 2017

Using this estimated reset date of June 13, 2016, CRS
compiled a list of major rules that would fall under this
reset period--i.e., rules that could be overturned in the
115th Congress using the CRA.
Table 1 lists the major rules CRS has identified as of
January 3, 2017, that could be eligible for the reset
mechanism. To identify these rules, CRS used a two-step
process. First, CRS consulted the Government Accountability
Office's (GAO's) federal rules database to identify major
rules that were issued during calendar year 2016 and posted
on GAO's website as of January 3, 2017. Second, CRS used
LIS's ``Executive Communications'' database to identify when
these rules were received in Congress.

Major Rules Issued by the Obama Administration That Are Potentially
Eligible for Disapproval Under the Congressional Review Act in the
115th Congress

major rules listed on gao's website as of january 3, 2017

Title of Rule (As Published in Federal Register) and RIN
Numbers are as follows:
Exemptions To Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities
Offerings, 3235-AL80; Investment Company Liquidity Risk
Management Programs, 3235-AL61; Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and
EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting
High-Skilled NonImmigrant Workers, 1615-ACO5; Walking-Working
Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection
Systems), 1216-AB80; Waste Prevention, Production Subject to
Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 1004-AE14; Investment
Company Swing Pricing, 3235-AL61; Establishing a More
Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair
Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of
the Current 50th Percentile FMRs, 2501-AD74; Medicare
Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017;
Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare
Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release;
Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion
of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare
Shared Savings Program Requirements, 0938-AS81.
Medicare Program; CY 2017 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and
Hospital and Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts,
0938-AS70; Medicare Program; Medicare Part B Monthly
Actuarial Rates, Premium Rate,

[[Page H81]]

and Annual Deductible Beginning January 1, 2017, 0938-AS72;
Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory
Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting
Programs; Organ Procurement Organization Reporting and
Communication; Transplant Outcome Measures and Documentation
Requirements; Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive
Programs; Payment to Nonexcepted Off-Campus Provider-Based
Department of a Hospital; Hospital Value-Based Purchasing
(VBP) Program; Establishment of Payment Rates Under the
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Nonexcepted Items and
Services Furnished by an Off-Campus Provider-Based Department
of a Hospital, 0938-AS82; Medicare Program; Merit-Based
Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model
(APM) Incentive Under the Physician Fee Schedule, and
Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models, 0938-AS69;
Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2017 Home Health
Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-
Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting
Requirements, 0938-AS80; Student Assistance General
Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family
Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and
Higher Education Grant Program, 1840-AD19; Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, 1904-AC51.
Medicaid Program; Final FY 2014 and Preliminary FY 2016
Disproportionate Share Hospital Allotments, and Final FY 2014
and Preliminary FY 2016 Institutions for Mental Diseases
Disproportionate Share Hospital Limits, 0938-ZB30; Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule Update For The 2008 Ozone NAAQS,
2060-AS05; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--
Phase 2, 2060-AS16; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fee Schedule, 1615-AC09; Treatment of Certain Interests in
Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness, 1545-BN40;
Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS),
1651-ABO8; ONC Health IT Certification Program: Enhanced
Oversight and Accountability, 0955-AA00; Clearing Requirement
Determination Under Section 2(H) of the Commodity Exchange
Act For Interest Rate Swaps, 3038-AE20; Standards For Covered
Clearing Agencies, 3235-AL48.
Medicare and Medicaid Programs, Reform of Requirements for
Long-Term Care Facilities, 0938-AR61; Child Care And
Development Fund (CCDF) Program, 0970-AC67; Establishing Paid
Sick Leave For Federal Contractors, 1235-AA13; OCC Guidelines
Establishing Standards For Recovery Planning By Certain Large
Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations,
And Insured Federal Branches; Technical Amendments, 1557-
AD96; Emergency Preparedness Requirements For Medicare And
Medicaid Participating Providers And Suppliers, 0938-A091;
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations On Certain Federal Indian
Reservations And Ceded Lands For The 2016-17 Season, 1018-
BA70; Safety And Effectiveness Of Consumer Antiseptics;
Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products For Over-The-Counter-
Human Use, 0910-AF69; Head Start Performance Standards, 0970-
AC63; Standards Of Performance For Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills, 2060-AMO8; Emission Guidelines And Compliance
Times For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 2060-AS23.
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Fair Pay And Safe
Workplaces, 9000-AM81; Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient
Prospective Payment Systems For Acute Care Hospitals And The
Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System & Policy
Changes & Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting
Requirements For Specific Providers; Graduate Medical
Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable To
Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; Technical
Changes Relating To Costs To Organizations & Medicare Cost
Reports; Finalization Of Interim Final Rules With Comment
Period On LTCH PPS Payments For Severe Wounds, Modifications
Of Limitations On Redesignation By The Medicare Geographic
Classification Review Board, & Extensions Of Payments To MDHS
And Low-Volume Hospitals, 0938-A577; 0938-A588; 0938-AS41;
Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act; Joint Rule For
Unified And Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability,
And The One-Stop System Joint Provisions; Final Rule, 1205-
AB74; Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act, 1205-AB73;
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System And Consolidated
Billing For Skilled Nursing Facilities For FY 2017, SNF
Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting
Program, And SNF Payment Models Research, 0938-AS75.
Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility
Prospective Payment System For Federal Fiscal Year 2017,
0938-AS78; Medicare Program; FF 2017 Hospice Wage Index And
Payment Rate Update And Hospice Quality Reporting
Requirements, 0938-AS79; Margin And Capital Requirements For
Covered Swap Entities, 3052-AC69; Medicare Program; FY 2017
Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System--
Rate Update, 0938-AS76; National School Lunch Program And
School Breakfast Program. Nutrition Standards For All Foods
Sold In School As Required By The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act Of 2010, 0584-AE09; Revised Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards No RIN provided; Amendments
To The Commission's Rules Of Practice, 3235-AL87; Disclosure
Of Payments By Resource Extraction Issuers, 3235-AL53;
Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons And Bag And Possession Limits
For Certain Migratory Game Birds, 1018-BA70; Oil And Gas And
Sulfur Operations On The Outer Continental Shelf--
Requirements For Exploratory Drilling On The Arctic Outer
Continental Shelf, 1082-AA00.
Medication Assisted Treatment For Opioid Use Disorders,
0930-AA22; Department Of Labor Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act Catch-Up Adjustments, 1290-AA31;
General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk
Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance
Regulations; And The Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic
Provisions, 0563-AC49; Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
For Military Personnel, 0790-AJ17; Operation And
Certification Of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AJ60;
Transit Asset Management, National Transit Database; FTA-
2014-0020, 092132-ABO7; Revision Of Fee Schedules; Fee
Recovery For Fiscal Year 2016, 3150-AJ66; Medicare Program;
Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System,
0938-AS33; James Zadroga 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund
Reauthorization Act, 1105-AB49; Energy Conservation Program:
Energy Conservation Standards For Battery Chargers, 1904-
AB57; Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation
Standards For Dehumidifiers, 1904-AC81; Removal Of Mandatory
Country Of Origin Labeling Requirements For Beef And Pork
Muscle Cuts, Ground Beef, And Ground Pork, 0581-AD29.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another piece of misguided
legislation, but this one will jeopardize the health and safety of the
American people to benefit corporate America and polluters.
Let's be clear. The protections that will be overwhelmingly targeted
by this measure are not so-called midnight regulations. These are rules
that went through significant vetting. There are a host of statutes
that govern how regulations are crafted. From the Administrative
Procedure Act to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, to the Paperwork Reduction Act, there are numerous
processes to ensure regulations are written in a way that protect the
American people while preventing overreach.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I
am well acquainted with the need to ensure that the regulatory process
is balanced. No one here supports overregulation; but, at the same
time, we cannot eliminate safeguards that have a proven record of
protecting the American public. This bill also has the potential to
create significant regulatory uncertainty for the same small businesses
my colleagues say they are trying to help.
At its core, this bill is about enabling the largest and most
powerful corporations to run rampant--without accountability. The
legislation before us could result in less protections for consumers,
and it could strip away workplace protections. We should reject this
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I served on the Small Business Committee with Ms. Velazquez a long
time ago. One thing that we all know is, with regard to that committee,
the NFIB--the National Federation of Independent Business--and small
business groups alike are something we look at, even NAM--the National
Association of Manufacturers--and, of course, the Chamber. All of those
organizations support this legislation. They have written letters in
support, and I include in the Record those letters.
The following is a list of supporters of H.R. 21, the
Midnight Rules Relief Act:
American Action Forum, American Center for Law and Justice,
American Commitment, American Energy Alliance, American Fuel
and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity--
Key Vote, Americans for Tax Reform, Associated Builders and
Contractors, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Concerned
Women for America.
Family Business Coalition, FreedomWorks, Heating Air-
conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International

[[Page H82]]

(HARDI), International Franchise Association, Let Freedom
Ring, National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED),
National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation
for Independent Business, R Street Institute, SBE Council,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
____

Associated Builders

and Contractors, Inc.,

January 4, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC), a national construction industry trade
association with 70 chapters representing nearly 21,000
chapter members, I am writing in regard to the Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2017
(H.R. 26) introduced by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) as well as
the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017 (H.R. 21) introduced by
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).
From 2009 to present, the federal government imposed nearly
$900 billion in regulatory costs on the American people which
requires billions of hours of paperwork. Many of these
regulations have been or will be imposed on the construction
industry. ABC is committed to reforming the broken federal
regulatory process and ensuring industry stakeholders' voices
are heard and rights are protected. ABC supports increased
transparency and opportunities for regulatory oversight by
Congress and ultimately, the American people.
The Obama administration issued numerous rulemakings that
detrimentally impact the construction industry. In some
cases, these regulations are based on conjecture and
speculation, lacking foundation in sound scientific analysis.
For the construction industry, unjustified and unnecessary
regulations translate to higher costs, which are then passed
along to the consumer or lead to construction projects being
priced out of the market. This chain reaction ultimately
results in fewer projects, and hinders businesses' ability to
hire and expand.
ABC members understand the value of standards and
regulations when they are based on solid evidence, with
appropriate consideration paid to implementation costs and
input from the business community. Federal agencies must be
held accountable for full compliance with existing rulemaking
statutes and requirements when promulgating regulations to
ensure they are necessary, current and cost-effective for
businesses to implement.
ABC opposes unnecessary, burdensome and costly regulations
resulting from the efforts of Washington bureaucrats who have
little accountability for their actions. H.R. 26 will help to
bring greater accountability to the rulemaking process as it
would require any executive branch rule or regulation with an
annual economic impact of $100 million or more to come before
Congress for an up-or-down vote before being enacted.
Moreover, H.R. 21 will further enhance congressional
oversight of the overreaching regulations often issued during
the final months of a president's term and help to revive the
division of powers.
Thank you for your attention on this important matter and
we urge the House to pass the Regulations from the Executive
in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2017 and Midnight Rules
Relief Act of 2017 when they come to the floor for a vote.
Sincerely,
Kristen Swearingen,
Vice President of Legislative & Political Affairs.
____

National Association of

Manufacturers,

January 4, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association
of Manufacturers (NAM), I am writing to express
manufacturers' support for the passage of H.R. 21, the
Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017, introduced by Congressman
Darrell Issa (R-CA).
The NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the
United States, representing small and large manufacturers in
every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing
employs nearly 12 million men and women, contributes more
than $1.8 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the
largest economic impact of any major sector, and accounts for
two-thirds of private sector research and development. The
NAM is the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps
manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs
across the United States.
The Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017 would amend the
Congressional Review Act to provide Congress the authority to
consider one joint resolution of disapproval for regulations
en bloc as opposed to a single regulation at a time. As the
end of an Administration approaches, there is an incentive
for federal agencies to issue a significant number of
regulations. These are known as midnight rules, and H.R. 21
would allow Congress to effectively respond to regulations
that conflict with congressional intent, exceed an agency's
statutory authority or are hastily drafted and issued as an
Administration prepares its departure.
The problem of midnight rules is not new and is not unique
to a particular political party. As an administration
attempts to complete its regulatory agenda, an abundance of
midnight rules can overwhelm Congress' ability to engage in
proper oversight of federal agencies. Midnight rules can be
issued without justification and without an agency conducting
proper regulatory analysis. Congress should be granted the
authority needed to appropriately respond to the issuance of
a midnight rules that might not be drafted in accordance with
sound regulatory principles.
Manufacturers support a regulatory system that results in
regulations that efficiently and effectively achieve policy
objectives, and we urge you to support passage of H.R. 21,
the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rosario Palmieri.
____

[From Americanactionforum.org, Jan. 3, 2017]

The Regulatory Cleanup Begins

(By Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Patrick Hefflinger)

On Wednesday Vice President-elect Mike Pence is scheduled
to meet with House Republicans to discuss Obamacare repeal
and replacement plans. Republicans are expected to delay
repealing parts of Obamacare to allow for more time to design
a replacement health care plan. President Obama is expected
to meet with Congressional Democrats on Wednesday as well to
discuss plans for defending Obamacare from repeal.
Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that
they had reached final agreements with Swiss banks on the
Swiss Bank Program. The program aims to help financial
institutions avoid criminal liabilities due to U.S. tax
crimes by granting banks non-prosecution eligibility if they
meet certain requirements. The Swiss Bank program was
initially announced in 2013.

Eakinomics: The Regulatory Cleanup Begins

The tally has been mounting for years--over 3,000 costly
regulations totaling nearly $875 billion in finalized burden
costs. As the economy became increasingly festooned with rule
making and regulatory drag, conservatives have promised to
bring the regulatory state to sanity given the first
opportunity. That moment has presumably arrived. Congress
returns from the holidays with plans to get started.
Specifically, I expect that the House will begin cleaning
up the midnight regulatory onslaught by the Obama
administration. Historically, this would have required a
regulation-by-regulation use of the Congressional Review Act
(CRA). Instead, the House will consider a bill (HR 5982 in
the last Congress), which would permit Congress to disapprove
multiple midnight rules en banc--in a single resolution.
That takes care of the last-gasp efforts of the outgoing
president. But what guarantees better performance in the
future? The House will next turn to the Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. With the REINS
Act, Congress would have 70 legislative days to approve a
major rule with economic impact over $100 million. Only then
would it be sent to the president for signature. Without a
positive vote, the regulation would not take effect. If
enacted, REINS could save more than $27 billion in annual
regulatory costs and 11.5 million paperwork burden hours
according to AAF research by Sam Batkins.
Passage of the REINS Act (or other, similar, legislation)
would insert Congress more firmly into the regulatory
process, a significant change that is not done lightly.
However, the lesson of the past eight years is that even
without executive overreach the regulatory process does not
correctly balance benefits and costs; a recalibration of the
underlying process is overdue.
Small Business &

Entrepreneurship Council,

Vienna, VA, January 3, 2017.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Issa: The Small Business
Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) strongly supports the
``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' This legislation is vital as
it provides a needed check against the surge in new and
questionable regulatory activity that is flooding into the
Federal Register, which will eventually make its way to small
businesses.
While ``midnight regulations'' have been a problem across
Administrations, what is happening in the current period is
staggering. According to the American Action Forum, the
current output of midnight rules is up 42 percent over 2008,
and 48 percent over 2000. This regulatory surge must be
``checked'' and contained by Congress before it causes
permanent damage to the competitiveness of many types of
small businesses.
The end-game push on the regulatory front will undoubtedly
show that shortcuts were taken in a process meant to protect
small businesses. Mercatus Center research found that the
quality of analysis suffers during the midnight regulatory
period, which means these regulations are ``excessively
costly'' or ineffective. Poorly constructed and politically-
driven regulation will only create more uncertainty and costs
for our nation's struggling small businesses.
Your legislation will provide Congress with needed
flexibility in using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) by
allowing a CRA resolution to address more than one
regulation. This important reform enhances the CRA and allows
Congress to use its time efficiently to address the many
issues that face our economy and nation.
Thank you for your continued leadership on issues important
to entrepreneurs and

[[Page H83]]

small businesses. Please let us know how we can help to
ensure the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act'' is signed into law.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President & CEO.
____

[From Townhall, Jan. 4, 2017]

The House Can Start Reversing Obama's Regulatory Overreach

(By Christine Harbin)

President Obama has made a series of executive decisions in
his final weeks in office that will undoubtedly harm the
economy.
Particularly egregious were his recent announcements on
energy and environmental policy: He rejected the permit for
the Dakota access pipeline, exempted wind farm companies from
killing eagles, abused the Antiquities Act to remove western
lands from economic development, and prohibited federal
offshore drilling and mineral leases on millions of acres
across the country, including 115 million acres off the coast
of Alaska.
This flurry of regulatory activity is simply the latest in
a long line of overreaches from the Obama White House. The
outgoing president has consistently sought ways to enact his
agenda unilaterally over his two terms--notoriously ``working
around Congress'' in order to do so. A recent report from the
American Action Forum found that the Obama administration
issued 600 major regulations totaling $743 billion over the
course of his presidency. This is an average of 81 major
regulations--regulations that exceed $100 million by agency
estimates--per year.
Thankfully, the House of Representatives is poised to hit
the ground running in slowing the growth of the regulatory
state. Representatives will consider two important bills on
the floor as one of their first orders of business for the
year. Both bills, once passed by the Senate and signed by
future President Trump, will bring meaningful relief to the
American families and businesses across the country who are
currently drowning in red tape.
The first bill, Rep. Darrell Issa's Midnight Rule Relief
Act, is particularly important given the onslaught of
regulations coming from the White House and the scarcity of
available floor time in Congress. It would allow Congress to
disapprove of multiple so-called ``midnight rules''--
regulations finalized in the waning days of the
administration--using a single Congressional Review Act (CRA)
resolution, as opposed to disapproving of these rules
individually. This change will make it easier for Congress to
disapprove of the Obama administration's recent spate of
economically dangerous actions.
The second bill, the Regulations from the Executive in Need
of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, is also important. This would
require executive agencies to submit ``major'' rules--those
with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more--to
Congress for review and a clear up-or-down vote before the
rules take effect. This would assert Congress's proper role
in approving the rules that govern the country, an authority
which has been increasingly delegated to executive agencies.
It would also encourage more debate among lawmakers about the
size and scope of the federal government. Incoming Sen. Todd
Young championed this important legislation during his time
in the House; it's good to see Rep. Doug Collins introduce it
in this new Congress.
Both of these bills received bipartisan support in past
Congresses; they may enjoy even more in this current one.
Strange bedfellows could emerge in anticipation of the Trump
presidency. Democrats in Congress who want to limit the
ability of a Republican White House to enact new rules, as
well as Republicans who principally support limiting the size
and scope of government.
Americans across the county voted for President-elect
Donald Trump and a Republican majority in Congress because
they are tired of President Obama's harmful regulatory
agenda. It's little surprise that President-elect Donald
Trump swept rust belt states and the upper Midwest in the
recent election--these parts of the country have been
devastated by President Obama's regulatory overreach, and
they stood to lose even further under the threats of a
Hillary Clinton administration.
Congress is right to reverse President Obama's regulatory
assault on job creation and economic growth in this county,
and it should work closely with President-elect Trump in
peeling it back. Representatives should support the two
regulatory reform bills when they come up on the floor this
week, and they should seek additional efforts to overturn
these myriad rules, including future Congressional Review Act
resolutions of disapproval and adding appropriations riders
that would prohibit funding for implementation of the worst
rules, while executive agencies promulgate new rules to
eliminate them.
Doing so will send a strong message that lawmakers are
willing to stand up to the executive overreach of the past
eight years.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are hearing many people talk
about important regulations and of their somehow being taken out. Let's
understand that regulations can go both ways. These changes and the
underlying law can also protect the other way. The fact is now we are
in the future. You could have an administration that, in its final
days, changes regulations to make them more lenient to large
businesses, more lenient to polluters, more lenient to the employers to
the detriment of their employees. Regulations can go both ways, and
only the most extreme regulations--literally one since the enactment of
the underlying legislation--has ever been repealed.
I don't want to belittle my own legislation, but let's understand
that there won't be 61 en bloc being brought. There will be some, I
hope, and there may be more than one. Yet for Congress to take back,
piece by piece, its responsibility and then live up to that
responsibility should be all of our goals.
Now, this legislation was limited to midnight rules. Let's understand
that midnight rules are the rules done in the waning days of an
administration--7-plus years into this administration--and many of
these rules, in fact, were enacted after the last vote of the people. I
think it is important to understand that, on election day, the American
people delivered a resounding message to Washington: stop the
regulatory, Big Government onslaught that is killing jobs.
One of my colleagues earlier spoke of the fact that we had had so
many jobs--15 million jobs--created in the last 8 years. The percentage
of the workforce that is working in America today is the smallest in my
lifetime. It is smaller than it was 8 years ago, 16 years ago, or 21
years ago. We are not creating jobs at the rate of our population. We
should not have some sort of an accolade for regulations having created
a great economy if, in fact, that economy has grown less than 2 percent
a year and has not kept up with any historic 8-year period. To me, that
is an important part. Although the discussion I just had was about more
than regulations, let's understand that the growth of regulations--of
lawmaking--is certainly not the creator of jobs.
I think, when we look at the cost--and that is a lot of what we are
dealing with in the manager's amendment in this bill--we are dealing
with the recognition that we are looking at regulations in light of how
much they cost. Now, that cost is based on independent scoring. It is
not the administration's scoring and it is not my scoring. It is that
of the Congressional Budget Office's, an independent agency that
doesn't always give a score I want, but the score is not arrived
through partisan activities.
I reach out again to the Members who may not yet know that what we
are asking is simply to assert our normal ability in Congress and put
together one or more ideas for the efficiency of the body, to send it
from here to the Senate, and from the Senate to the President. What we
are proposing in this legislation as a small change to the underlying
legislation that has been with us for three Presidents is, in fact,
consistent with this body's doing its job, in regular order, in the
clear light of day.
I think the important message for this piece of bipartisan
legislation is: we are taking back a limited amount of our capability,
trying to streamline it, and giving the President an opportunity to
accept or reject a piece of legislation voted on by a majority of the
House and a majority of the Senate before it gets to the President. The
President, if he feels we have included even one regulation
inappropriately that he would like to retain, would veto our bill.
Lastly, I beg everyone to look at this for what it is, not for what
others say it is, because it is simply Congress doing its job in an
efficient fashion and consistent with 20-plus years of history and with
there being only one piece--one time--when a regulation was withdrawn.
No President since that time has tried to produce or has asked Congress
to pass a law so as to put into effect a regulation that, on a
bipartisan basis, the House, the Senate, and a President thought should
go. I urge the support for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 5, the previous question
is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

[[Page H84]]

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. CASTOR of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21 to
the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:

Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

SEC. 3. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RULES THAT PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATION BY INSURANCE ISSUERS ON THE
BASIS OF GENDER OR PREEXISTING CONDITION OR
THAT MAKE HEALTHCARE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR
WORKING AMERICANS.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall apply in the case of any rule that pertains to the
prevention of--
(1) discrimination by health insurance issuers and group
health plans on the basis of preexisting conditions or
gender, including in the form of higher premiums for women or
loss of benefits such as mammograms, cervical cancer
screenings, prenatal care, and commonly prescribed
contraception; or
(2) higher premiums or out-of-pocket costs for seniors for
prescription drugs under prescription drug plans under the
Medicare program under part D of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 2 U.S.C. 1395w-101 et seq.).

Mr. ISSA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as
amended.
My amendment provides an important safeguard for the economic
security of American families by maintaining the consumer-friendly
protections in the Affordable Care Act for, one, the cost-saving
provisions in Medicare of lower prescription drugs for our parents and
our grandparents; and, two, the vital consumer protection that
prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because someone has
a preexisting condition like cancer, asthma, or diabetes.
The Affordable Care Act, which Republicans say they want to repeal
without a replacement bill in sight, provided these very important
consumer protections for all Americans not just for the 20 million
Americans who gained health insurance through the marketplace or
HealthCare.gov, but for the vast majority of Americans who are covered
through Medicare, which is about 43 million Americans, and for the
folks who have health insurance through their jobs, which is about 155
million Americans.

{time} 1445

Here is what the Affordable Care Act has done for those folks: One,
Medicare is stronger. The Affordable Care Act strengthened the Medicare
fund, extending its life by over a decade. In addition, Medicare
enrollees have benefited from huge savings in prescription drug costs.
They have also saved through preventative screenings for breast and
colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes; that when they
go to the doctor's office now, there is no cost, there is no charge.
That is the Affordable Care Act.
So if Republicans aren't careful in their zeal to repeal the
Affordable Care Act, they, in essence, will be asking our parents and
grandparents to pay more, a whole lot more for their prescription
drugs.
Let me get a little local here. I represent the State of Florida
where about 18 percent of Floridians rely on Medicare for their health
care. Because of the Affordable Care Act, it has started to close the
doughnut hole. Repeal it now and that stops. That goes away. Just in
2015 alone, 350,000 Florida seniors saved $351 million on their
prescription drugs. That is an average of about $1,000 per beneficiary.
So my amendment makes the point that Democrats are going to fight for
our older neighbors to keep those savings intact, brought to you by the
Affordable Care Act.
Second, we also want to put everyone on notice that Democrats intend
to fight tooth and nail to keep the vital consumer protection, one of
the bedrocks of the Affordable Care Act, that bars health insurance
companies from refusing to cover you or charge you more because you
have a preexisting condition or charge women more than men.
Whether you know it or not, all Americans have benefited from the bar
on discrimination from preexisting conditions since January 1, 2014. So
if you have health insurance through your employer, you have benefited
from the Affordable Care Act. If you have gone to healthcare.gov
because you are a student, part-time worker, or you don't have it
through your job, you have benefited. If you have health insurance for
your children through the Children's Health Insurance Program or
Medicaid, you are no longer subject to discrimination.
Remember a few years ago when insurance companies maintained a long
list of conditions where they said, if you have cancer or diabetes or
something, you are automatically excluded, that is the way things
worked. A congressional investigation into this practice during the
healthcare reform debate uncovered more than 400 medical diagnoses or
conditions that insurance used to justify coverage denial. At the top
of the list were cancer, heart disease, pregnancy, diabetes, HIV/AIDS,
multiple sclerosis, and muscular dystrophy.
You know what? Generally, States with the highest rates of denial
were in the South and the Midwest where the overall health status of
residents has consistently been worse than in other parts of the
country. The incidence of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes is higher
in those States.
Well, now you cannot be discriminated against for those preexisting
conditions. That kind of discrimination wasn't right. It had no place
in America, so we outlawed it in the Affordable Care Act. Like one of
my neighbors, Christine Roper in Tampa--Christine is 26. She recently
aged off her father's insurance and was unsure how to find coverage
because she has a heart condition and asthma. Before, she would have
been prohibited from getting health insurance, but not today. And we
are not going backwards. That is because millions of Americans who can
now buy coverage would be forced back into the ranks of the uninsured.
We are going to start this Congress off by standing up for our
families and rejecting any attempts to repeal and replace the
Affordable Care Act.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my motion, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I remember Chairman Ed Towns who used to say
when someone ran on: The gentleman's time has long expired. I think we
might have that situation here, but I am going to give the gentlewoman
from Florida a moment more in just a moment.
The motion to recommit specifically sends it back to the committee.
That is not necessary. The fact is that if she wanted these changes and
wanted them enacted immediately there is a procedure to do so.
So I rise in opposition because this is certainly something that
would delay, would send this back to committee, and cause it to come
back again.
I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a
question, if she wouldn't mind: Is there a regulation in those 61 that
would be affected by this that would affect any of the provisions that
you cited in your amendment?
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Well, according to the Midnight Rules Relief
Act, the public really won't know, and that is the point.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman answer the question. Is
there 61, according to the ranking member, pieces of regulation that

[[Page H85]]

could be in the window? I just wondered if you had one regulation by
the Obama administration that concerned any of these issues that you
had in the act.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
In fact, there are extensive regulations listed as major rules
relating to Medicare because part of what we did in the Affordable Care
Act was to begin to change Medicare from a volume-based system to a
value-based system.

Major Rules Issued by the Obama Administration That Are Potentially
Eligible for Disapproval Under the Congressional Review Act in the
115th Congress

Major Rules Listed on GAO's Website As of January 3, 2017

Title of Rule (As Published in Federal Register) and RIN
Number are as follows:
Exemptions To Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities
Offerings 3235-AL80; Investment Company Liquidity Risk
Management Programs, 3235-AL61; Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and
EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting
High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 1615-ACO5; Walking-Working
Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection
Systems), 1216-AB80; Waste Prevention, Production Subject to
Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 1004-AE14; Investment
Company Swing Pricing, 3235-AL61; Establishing a More
Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair
Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of
the Current 50th Percentile FMRs, 2501-AD74; Medicare
Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017;
Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare
Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release;
Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion
of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare
Shared Savings Program Requirements, 0938-AS81.
Medicare Program; CY 2017 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and
Hospital and Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts,
0938-AS70; Medicare Program; Medicare Part B Monthly
Actuarial Rates, Premium Rate, and Annual Deductible
Beginning January 1, 2017, 0938-AS72; Hospital Outpatient
Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment
Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; Organ Procurement
Organization Reporting and Communication; Transplant Outcome
Measures and Documentation Requirements; Electronic Health
Record (EHR) Incentive Programs; Payment to Nonexcepted Off-
Campus Provider-Based Department of a Hospital; Hospital
Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program; Establishment of
Payment Rates Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for
Nonexcepted Items and Services Furnished by an Off-Campus
Provider-Based Department of a Hospital, 0938-AS82; Medicare
Program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and
Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive Under the Physician
Fee Schedule, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment
Models, 0938-AS69; Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2017
Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home
Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality
Reporting Requirements, 0938-AS80; Student Assistance General
Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family
Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and
Higher Education Grant Program, 1840-AD19; Energy
Conservation Program, Energy Conservation Standards for
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, 1904-AC51.
Medicaid Program; Final FY 2014 and Preliminary FY 2016
Disproportionate Share Hospital, Allotments, and Final FY
2014 and Preliminary FY 2016 Institutions for Mental
Diseases, Disproportionate Share Hospital Limits, 0938-ZB30;
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update For The 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 2060-AS05; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and
vehicles--Phase 2, 2060-AS16; U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Fee Schedule, 1615-AC09; Treatment of
Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness,
1545-BN40; Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System
(EVUS), 1651-AB08; ONC Health IT Certification Program:
Enhanced Oversight and Accountability, 0955-AA00; Cleaning
Requirement Determination Under Section 2(H) Of The Commodity
Exchange Act For Interest Rate Swaps, 3038-AE20; Standards
For Covered Clearing Agencies, 3235-AL48.
Medicare And Medicaid Programs; Reform Of Requirements For
Long-Term Care Facilities, 0938-AR61; Child Care And
Development Fund (CCDF) Program, 0970-AC67; Establishing Paid
Sick Leave For Federal Contractors, 1235-AAI3; OCC Guidelines
Establishing Standards For Recovery Planning By Certain Large
Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations,
And Insured Federal Branches; Technical Amendments, 1557-
AD96; Emergency Preparedness Requirements For Medicare And
Medicaid Participating Providers And Suppliers, 0938-A091;
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations On Certain Federal Indian
Reservations And Ceded Lands For The 2016-17 Season, 1018-
BA70; Safety And Effectiveness Of Consumer Antiseptics;
Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products For Over-The-Counter-
Human Use, 0910-AF69; Head Start Performance Standards, 0970-
AC63; Standards Of Performance For Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills, 2060-AM08; Emission Guidelines And Compliance
Times For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 2060-AS23.
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Fair Pay And Safe
Workplaces, 9000-AM81; Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient
Prospective Payment Systems For Acute Care Hospitals And The
Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System & Policy
Changes & Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting
Requirements For Specific Providers; Graduate Medical
Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable To
Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; Technical
Changes Relating To Costs To Organizations & Medicare Cost
Reports; Finalization Of Interim Final Rules With Comment
Period On LTCH PPS Payments For Severe Wounds, Modifications
Of Limitations On Redesignation By The Medicare Geographic
Classification Review Board, & Extensions Of Payments To MDHS
And Low-Volume Hospitals, 0938-AS77; 0938-AS88; 0938-AS41;
Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act; Joint Rule For
Unified And Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability,
And The One-Stop System Joint Provisions; Final Rule, 1205-
AB74; Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act, 1205-AB73;
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System And Consolidated
Billing For Skilled Nursing Facilities For FY 2017, SNF
Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting
Program, And SNF Payment Models Research, 0938-AS75.
Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility
Prospective Payment System For Federal Fiscal Year 2017,
0938-AS78; Medicare Program; FF 2017 Hospice Wage Index And
Payment Rate Update And Hospice Quality Reporting
Requirements, 0938-AS79; Margin And Capital Requirements For
Covered Swap Entities, 3052-AC69; Medicare Program; FY 2017
Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System--
Rate Update, 0938-AS76; National School Lunch Program And
School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards For All Foods
Sold In School As Required By The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act Of 2010, 0584-AE09; Revised Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards, No RIN provided; Amendments
To The Commission's Rules Of Practice, 3235-AL87; Disclosure
Of Payments By Resource Extraction Issuers, 3235-AL53;
Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons And Bag And Possession Limits
For Certain Migratory Game Birds, 1018-BA70; Oil and Gas And
Sulfur Operations On The Outer Continental Shelf--
Requirements For Exploratory Drilling On The Arctic Outer
Continental Shelf, 1082-AA00.
Medication Assisted Treatment For Opioid Use Disorders,
0930-AA22; Department Of Labor Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act Catch-Up Adjustments, 1290-AA31;
General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk
Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance
Regulations; And The Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic
Provisions, 0563-AC49; Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
For Military Personnel, 0790-AJ17; Operation And
Certification Of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AJ60;
Transit Asset Management; National Transit Database; FTA-
2014-0020, 2132-AB07; Revision Of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery
For Fiscal Year 2016, 3150-AJ66; Medicare Program; Medicare
Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System, 0938-
AS33; Jams Zadroga 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund
Reauthorization Act, 1105-AB49; Energy Conservation Program:
Energy Conservation Standards For Battery Chargers, Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards For
Dehumidifiers, 1904-AC81; Removal Of Mandatory Country Of
Origin Labeling Requirements For Beef And Pork Muscle Cuts,
Ground Beef, And Ground Pork, 0581-AD29.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask that the
gentlewoman, if there are some, place them in the Record. I don't know
of any in the 61 that were granted, let's say, after June.
What I will say is that the reason I will be voting and urging my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit is not the
regulations that she alludes to but, in fact, the fact that this would
kill the bill by sending it back and having it delayed further.
So, in order to pass it today, because she did not set it up to
exclude these items and have them immediately considered, I cannot
support her motion to recommit.
What I will say is that when we look at regulations to put into a
package that may be a package of one or a package, if this passes, of
more than one, I certainly will expect that those regulations will have
to do with things which could have been done sooner, would have been
done sooner, and were done in the waning days of the administration for
no reason that was time sensitive.
The Affordable Care Act was passed in the first days of the
administration. If there is something in the last days of the
administration that has merit, I certainly would urge my colleagues not

[[Page H86]]

to rescind that regulation. But if there is something that should have
been done in year one, two, three, four, five, or six, I would ask why
it wasn't done then.
Having said that, it is unfortunate that this motion to recommit was
written in a way that would send it back to committee and, thus, cause
a substantial delay.
I would caution my colleagues that, at least from this Member, if you
have a motion to recommit and you want the amendment itself considered,
make it one that is immediate and not back to committee. The
difference, I think, is important. The Parliamentarian simply can
advise on how to write one that would prevent it having to get, if you
will, another delay of days or weeks.
I urge opposition to the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________