Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H124-H146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2017

General Leave

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 26.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 22 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 26.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1433

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 26) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect
unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, with Mr.
Hultgren in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, regulatory reform plays a critical role in ensuring
that our Nation finally achieves a full economic recovery and retains
its competitive edge in the global marketplace. Congress must advance
pro-growth policies that create jobs and restore economic prosperity
for families and businesses across the Nation and make sure that any
administration and its regulatory apparatus is held accountable to the
American people.
America's small-business owners are suffocating under mountains of
endlessly growing, bureaucratic red tape; and the uncertainty about the
cost of upcoming regulations discourages employers from hiring new
employees and expanding their businesses. Excessive regulation means
higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less economic growth, and a
less competitive America.
Today, Americans face a burden of over $3 trillion per year from
Federal taxation and regulation. In fact, our Federal regulatory burden
is larger than the 2014 gross domestic product of all but the top eight
countries in the world. That burden adds up to about $15,000 per
American household--nearly 30 percent of average household income in
2015.
Everyone knows it has been this way for far too long; but the Obama
administration, instead of fixing the problem, has known only one
response: increase taxes, increase spending, and increase regulation.
The results have painfully demonstrated a simple truth: America cannot
tax, spend, and regulate its way to economic recovery, economic growth,
and durable prosperity for the American people.
Consider just a few facts that reveal the economic weakness the Obama
administration has produced. In the December 2016 jobs report, the
number of unemployed workers, workers who can only find part-time jobs,
and workers who are now only marginally attached to the labor force
stood at 9.3 percent. They number 15 million Americans. America's labor
force participation rate remains at lows not seen since the Carter
administration, and median household income is still below the level
achieved before the financial crisis, which is after the entirety of
the Obama administration.
The contrast between America's current condition and the recovery
Ronald Reagan achieved as President is particularly stark in that, 4\1/
2\ years after a recession began in 1981, the Reagan administration,
through policies opposite to those of the Obama administration's, had
achieved a recovery that created 7.8 million more jobs than when the
recession began. Real per capita gross domestic product rose by $3,091,
and real median household income rose by 7.7 percent.
To truly fix America's problems, the REINS Act is one of the
simplest, clearest, and most powerful measures we can adopt. The level
of new major regulation from the Obama administration is without modern
precedent. Testimony before the Judiciary Committee during recent
Congresses has

[[Page H125]]

plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation
and declining levels of jobs and growth.
The REINS Act responds by requiring an up-or-down vote by the
people's representatives in Congress before any new major regulation,
which is defined in the bill generally as a rule that has an effect on
the economy of at least $100 million, can be imposed on our economy. It
does not prohibit new major regulation. It simply establishes the
principle: ``no major regulation without representation.''
The REINS Act provides Congress and, ultimately, the people with a
much-needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet that Washington's
regulatory bureaucrats too often turn. During the 114th, 113th, and
112th Congresses, the REINS Act was passed multiple times by the full
House of Representatives, each time with bipartisan support.
I thank Mr. Collins of Georgia for reintroducing this legislation,
and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I listened intently to my colleague's opening remarks, and he seemed
to try to justify the passage of the REINS Act, which I rise in
opposition to, by the way, by saying that it has been the Obama
administration's job-killing regulations that have put our economy in
its position, which is one that is not good.
Despite trying to convince the American people of that allegation,
the American people are aware of the facts. They are aware of the fact
that, 8 years ago, when President Obama came into office and under a
Republican stewardship that used trickle-down economics as its model,
this economy neared that of the Great Depression's. In fact, we call it
the period of the Great Recession. This country almost went into a
depression, and it went into a Great Recession because of George Bush's
and the Republicans' policies of trickle-down economics, which Daddy
Bush--George Herbert Walker Bush--once referred to as ``voodoo
economics,'' and he was right about that.

Let's look at where we were then and look at where we are now and ask
ourselves: Are we not better off now than we were then?
There are not many voices that could say, No, we are not better off
now than we were then, because they know, since then, there have been
81 straight months of positive private sector job growth.
They know that over 15.6 million new jobs have been added to our
economy by President Obama. They also know that 30 million more people
have health insurance and access to the healthcare system now than they
did back then. They know that regulations had to ensue from the passage
of the Affordable Care Act in order to enable those 30 million people
to have coverage now. That is why they want to introduce this
legislation to cut regulations. They want to try to hurt the Affordable
Care Act. They also know that regulations had to spring forth from the
Dodd-Frank, Wall Street regulation, legislation that was passed in this
body. They know that those regulations have protected the finances and
the financial security of Americans who are doing far better now than
they were 8 years ago when President Obama took office.
The American people know that they are much better off now. They know
that bankruptcies have gone down. They know that foreclosures have gone
down. They know that they have better jobs. They know that things are
better now than they were back then.
You will remember and the American people will remember that on the
very day of President Obama's first inauguration, Mitch McConnell and a
cabal of Republicans met from both the House and Senate, crying in
their beers at a Capitol Hill bar. They embarked on a strategy to--
what?--make sure that President Obama would be a first-term President.
So they resolved to oppose everything that he proposed, and they
certainly did. Despite unprecedented opposition from the Republicans'
just saying ``no'' to everything, the American people know that they
are in a better position today than they were at this time 8 years ago
when coming into the Obama administration.
The Republicans want to introduce legislation to do away with the
rules and the regulations concerning the Affordable Care Act and the
Dodd-Frank legislation, which has protected the financial security of
Americans over the last 8 years. That is why they come forward with
this so-called jobs bill. This regulatory reform bill called the REINS
Act is not going to produce or create one single job. What it will do
is cut measures to protect the health, safety, and well-being of
Americans.

{time} 1445

This misguided legislation would amend the Congressional Review Act
to require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a
joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any
major rule issued by an agency can take effect. In other words, this
bill would subject new major rules to nullification by Congress through
an unconstitutional legislative veto by one Chamber of Congress.
Following Republican attempts earlier this week to gut ethics and
oversight rules that are necessary to police corruption, it is telling
that the REINS Act is the next bill that the House would consider in
the 115th Congress. Americans should understand what the game plan is
of the Republicans. They want the fox to guard the henhouse. That is
why the very first act that they tried to get passed was reform of the
House ethics regime. They wanted to neuter it, place it under the
control of the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee, where it
would then languish and die like a prune on a vine that was unwatered.
That is the first thing they came up with, and the American people
called them on it and wouldn't let them pass it. So they have postponed
it. America needs to keep their eyes on this Congress to make sure that
they don't follow through with that measure that would install the
foxes over the henhouse. What they want to do is install the corporate
foxes over America's henhouse with this REINS Act.
The REINS Act is central to the Speaker's so-called Better Way
agenda, which is really only a better way for rich, corporate elites to
further insulate themselves from public accountability and is
emblematic of the same tired and crony-capitalist proposals that have
been kicked around by opponents of environmental and public health
protections since the 1980s. In fact, in 1983, Chief Justice John
Roberts, who was then a counsel to President Reagan, criticized a
similar proposal as unwise because it would hobble agency rulemaking by
requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules and would
seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies.
In addition to being an unmitigated disaster for public health and
safety, proposals like the REINS Act will actually do major harm to
regulatory reform attempts, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in
1981. Then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Justice
Scalia cautioned: ``Those in the Congress seem perversely unaware that
the accursed `unelected officials' downtown are now their unelected
officials, presumably seeking to move things in their desired
direction; and that every curtailment of desirable agency discretion
obstructs (principally) departure from Democrat-produced, pro-
regulatory status quo.''
Now, it is not often that I quote Justice Scalia, but, ironically, I
do so today.
The REINS Act also imposes deadlines for the enactment of a joint
resolution approving a major rule that could charitably be referred to
as Byzantine. So as not to use too lofty language, I will just declare
that this thing is like throwing a monkey wrench in a well-oiled
machine.
Under new section 802, the House may only consider a major rule on
the second or fourth Thursday of each month. In 2014, for example,
there were only 13 such days on the legislative calendar. I think on
the legislative calendar for 2017, there are only about 13, maybe 14 or
15, such days where we could consider these major rules on this
legislative calendar. I would point out that there are approximately 80
such rules of importance that come through in a typical year.

[[Page H126]]

Furthermore, under new section 801, Congress may only consider such
resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This
creates a lot of red tape that threatens to end rulemaking as we know
it, and that is the exact, precise intent of this Congress. Even if
agencies reduce the number of major rules in contemplation of a bill's
onerous requirements, Congress would still lack the expertise and
policy justifications for refusing to adopt a major rule.
As over 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and
administrative law noted in a letter in opposition to a substantively
identical version of this bill, without this expertise, any
``disapproval is therefore more likely to reflect the political power
of special interests, a potential that would be magnified in light of
the fast-track process.''
Lastly, by flipping the process of agency rulemaking so that Congress
can simply void implementation by not acting on a major rule, the REINS
Act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of
Article I of the Constitution.
It is my pleasure to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the REINS
Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for
taking charge of this bill in the 115th Congress and Judiciary Chairman
Goodlatte for quickly bringing it to the floor.
This week and next, the primary focus of debate here in the House is
the stranglehold of regulation on the economy and its intrusion into
the everyday lives of Americans. These onerous burdens are well-known
to Members of Congress on both sides.
Over the past several years, I have spent countless hours traveling
across the nearly 6,600 square miles of my district. I have met with my
constituents in their homes, in their workplaces and social halls. They
have pleaded with me for release from the regulations that limit their
ability to prosper, innovate, and grow.
Unlike the nameless, faceless, ever-growing bureaucracy here in
Washington, we have listened to the people's concerns. We have made
regulatory reform a priority and the focal point for jump-starting our
economy. By placing final approval of major regulations in the hands of
Congress, the REINS Act is an important launch point in our efforts to
dismantle the administrative state and make government more accountable
to the American people.

Our Founders vested in Congress--and Congress alone--the power to
write the laws. Unfortunately, over our history, we have delegated much
of that power away. The Founders could not have imagined our current
scenario where the complaints of many fall on the deaf ears of an
unelected few in Washington.
Thinking over the past 8 years, the REINS Act could have prevented
numerous regulations that the American people knew were threats to
their very way of life. Perhaps a trillion dollars in costs could have
been avoided. I cannot even imagine how many jobs might have been saved
or created if we avoided the regulatory barrage brought on by the Obama
administration.
For example, we could have prevented the waters of the United States
regulation that impacts the farmers near my home in rural Pennsylvania.
The FCC's net neutrality rule might have been overturned, a classic
rulemaking bait and switch where the FCC ignored the mountains of
public comment to achieve its own political ends. An unaccountable sum
of environmental regulations might have been avoided before destroying
large swaths of our industry and imposing huge costs on taxpayers.
Our prime takeaway from these instances and others is that the
runaway regulators issued wide-ranging and economy-destroying
regulations with complete disregard for the hardworking American
citizens whose livelihoods were at stake.
Today we take an important step to reassert the voice of the American
people in our government. The REINS Act reestablishes the Congress as
the final judge of whether or not any particular regulation actually
does what the Congress meant it to do.
Returning this responsibility to the branch of government most
attentive and accountable to the people adheres to the principles of
our Nation's founding. It is an effort that all elected to Congress
should support.
I urge my colleagues to support the REINS Act.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
eloquence of the gentleman from the great State of Tennessee (Mr.
Cohen), my friend out of the great city of Memphis.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I can live up to those
words, but I certainly appreciate them.
I was the ranking member on this committee, and I was chair at one
point. We have had this bill over the years. It is indeed a monkey
wrench or a monkey in the wrench, as John McCain might have said. It
will mess up the entire system that we have of Congress passing laws,
delegating, giving the executive the ability to enact them in ways that
make them functional and appropriate and come up with the details that
the Congress does not have enough expertise to do.
The other side refers constantly to people that prepare these rules--
which take many, many years and have much, much input--as bureaucrats,
as if it is some type of pejorative. Bureaucrats are government
employees who have expertise in certain areas and who study an area and
become so much more expert than we are on the subject that they can
come up with fine-tuned laws that are checked and balanced to make sure
that the laws are implemented in the way that Congress intends. If
Congress doesn't like it, Congress can pass a bill by both House and
Senate to repeal it. We have already got that possibility.
Under this unique approach, either one of the houses of Congress can
stop a regulation, a rule from going into effect because both Houses
would have to approve a rule and the President would have to sign it
before it could go into effect. That gives one House the ability to
veto, basically, an executive action.
It is the executive in our system that has the power to veto acts of
the legislature and not vice versa. We can pass laws in a bicameral
spirit, which is what our Constitution has, when the House and the
Senate agree. But neither House, independently, is given any power to
veto laws or legislation. This would break that and, I believe, be
unconstitutional. That is why I oppose H.R. 26, the Regulations from
the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017.
Indeed, the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act is most appropriate
this year as we start, because in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, we are,
indeed, going to have an executive in need of scrutiny. So I thank the
Republicans for naming this bill appropriately because we are, indeed,
in the times of an Executive in need of scrutiny.
We need scrutiny over income tax returns that have been hidden from
the public that might disclose conflicts of interest or loans from
characters that might be considered oligarchs and have some type of an
influence over our foreign policy and our domestic.
We need an Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act that deals with these
conflicts, with income taxes that haven't been released, with
businesses in the District where people could go to hotels and curry
favor with the Executive.
Indeed, we do have an Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, so I
appreciate the well-named bill that the Republicans have brought us and
the awareness that, through this bill, they have seen that we need some
concern about the Executive coming because he certainly needs scrutiny.

{time} 1500

This bill, though, is the worst of corporate special interest because
it will give corporate special interests the opportunity to override
rules that take effect unless both Houses pass them. It is difficult
enough for this House and the Senate to get legislation passed in the
days that we often give to legislation, but to have both Houses have to
agree, in which case if you can't, it is, in essence, a pocket veto,
and it doesn't even have to be scheduled for a

[[Page H127]]

vote because the House would have to positively pass and the Senate
positively pass. So if the Speaker doesn't want to do it, the Speaker
can pocket veto the regulation. It doesn't even have to be scheduled.
This is not draining the swamp. It will heighten the influence of
corporate lobbyists in Congress where they can come to the Speaker and
ask that agency rules they don't like that might protect the lives of
children because they are regulations dealing with toys that seem to
possibly be defective, or automobiles where they need safety devices,
or other consumer protections that interfere with business interests--
business is good and important, but sometimes businesses do things that
are injurious to the public.
To give this opportunity to stop rules and regulations from going
into effect that protect the public is wrong. It was suggested maybe it
will help the economy, but at what cost? What is one life worth--or
several lives--if lives are lost because safety regulations are not
approved by this House and the Senate, or one or the other, and then
don't go into effect? As I mentioned, this is seriously
constitutionally defective.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member mentioned Justice Scalia.
I will mention Chief Justice John Roberts who criticized nearly
identical legislation in the 1980s when he was a White House lawyer
because it would ``hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative
congressional assent to all major rules'' such that it would ``seem to
impose excessive burdens on regulatory agencies.'' That was John
Roberts.
Some of the underlying facts given were about the economy. No matter
what you say, President Obama has been effective on the economy. We
saved the housing market. We saved this country from the Great
Recession. We brought about recovery. That is not something we should
disparage but we should praise. The stock market has gone up to record
highs. Unemployment is down. Jobs are up. The automobile industry has
been saved.
I ask Members to reject this bill because it is unconstitutional. It
will cost lives of American citizens because safety regulations won't
be passed.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers intended for us to
have a limited government. If they saw what we have today, they would
be appalled. Our government has gotten huge. It is out of control, and
an alphabet soup of government agencies and unelected bureaucrats are
writing the laws. They call them regulations, but they have the effect
of laws.
I am going to disagree with my friend and colleague from Tennessee,
any power these agencies have to write regulations was delegated to
Congress. We are pulling some of that power back, back to Congress,
back to people elected by the people; in fact, to where the Founding
Fathers put it in Article I of the Constitution.
That is why I am here today, to support the REINS Act. It says that
if an agency enacts a regulation that has an economic impact of more
than $100 million, that has to come back before Congress for a positive
vote before it takes effect.
Now, quite frankly, because the Constitution vests all of the
legislative power in Congress, I think every single regulation that one
of these agencies does should have to come back before Congress, but
the REINS Act is a great start.
Throughout President Obama's administration, a flood of regulations
has put extreme pressure and burdens on American job creators and
American families. Take, for example, the EPA's waters of the U.S.
rule. It is a power grab by the EPA attempting to regulate any body of
water on a private land basically that is any bigger than a bathtub. It
goes way beyond what the Clean Water Act says they can do.
Using its new interpretation of WOTUS, the EPA has full authority to
bully land-owning American citizens like Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson
who got a permit from the State and local government to build a stock
pond so his cattle could have something to drink. Well, guess what, the
EPA said, nope. They came in after the fact and said: if you don't take
that out, we are going to hit you with $37,500 a day in fines. Finally,
after drawn-out litigation, the EPA was slapped back and Johnson's $16
million in fines was erased.
This is just one of the many examples of the huge power grab these
Federal agencies are doing.
We need people who are elected and answerable to the American people
writing the laws, not unelected bureaucrats. That is why we need the
REINS Act, and that is why we need to restore the constitutional power
granted to this body in Article I. The REINS Act is a great start, and
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas cites Article I giving the
legislative branch authority to make the laws, and no one can argue
with that. However, I would point out that Article II, section 3
imposes upon the President, the executive, the obligation to take care
that the laws are faithfully executed, and so rulemaking comes up under
that authority, that constitutional authority. So what we have is a
move by the legislative branch to intrude upon and to indeed regulate.
And certainly we have that power to do so. But is it wise? Is it
prudent? Or does it simply positively impact our campaign contributors,
the people who put money into our campaigns? Is that the sole reason
why we are doing this?

We need to give care and thought into what we are doing here in
Congress in this House of Representatives even though one party has all
of the power now. They have the majority in the House, they have the
majority in the Senate, and they have an incoming President. It doesn't
mean they should go off the rails with a philosophy that is not in
keeping with where the American people are.
I would point out to them that there is no mandate that they have,
even though they do have control of the legislative branch and the
executive branch of government and they have held up, what some say
actually stolen an appointment for the U.S. Supreme Court that
President Obama was placed in a position to make last February upon the
untimely demise of Justice Scalia. So since February, the U.S. Supreme
Court has had to suffer through politics being played by the
legislative branch in not confirming a presidential appointee, and now
they have the opportunity to make that appointment under these
conditions.
Even though they have played loose and fancy with the protections of
the Constitution and with the well-being of the American people and
indeed our Republic by playing these political games, I would ask my
friends on the other side of the aisle to stop and think about what
they are doing and the ramifications of it. Even though you want to get
at the EPA to make it easier for oil companies to pollute our
environment without regulations to prevent it from happening, is that
good for our Nation? Is it good for our children? Is it good for our
elderly? How does it leave us with regard to asthma rates which have
continued to skyrocket in this country? Do you want to gut the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street reform to put us back in the situation where people
are losing their homes and banks are being bailed out because they have
become too fat to fail? Do we want to put ourselves back in that
position again? Well, if we do then we will pass regulations like this
one, the so-called REINS Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), a member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for
all of his leadership on this matter.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 26, the REINS Act, which will
restore the constitutional authority of Congress and rein in runaway
government.
Mr. Chairman, as we have seen over the last 8 years, our economy has
been strangled by Federal regulations which are burying small
businesses and families. Federal regulations imposed on

[[Page H128]]

America's job creators and households created a staggering economic
burden of almost $2 trillion in 2014. That is almost $15,000 per U.S.
household, and 11.5 percent of America's real GDP.
But today, the House has an opportunity to cut through the red tape
and restore the balance of powers. Economic growth cannot happen from
Washington, D.C., it can only come from Main Street. That is why I
adamantly oppose unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats issuing their
own closed-door regulations in place of congressional regulations. The
REINS Act will restore Congress' Article I powers and give a voice back
to the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for
H.R. 26.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), currently a member
of the Judiciary Committee but soon to move to another committee.
Mr. TROTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 26, the REINS
Act. In a minute, I want to share an experience I had a few months ago
which will explain why, aside from the Constitution, I think it is
important that we rein in unelected bureaucrats.
When we talk about regulatory reform, it is sometimes hard to
understand the impact regulations have on our economy. That is for the
simple reason that someone who goes in for a job interview never sits
there and is told by the employer: I would love to offer you the job,
but I can't because of the crushing regulatory burden coming out of
Washington. And that is because the crushing burden of regulations
causes the job not to be created in the first place; and, hence, there
is no interview for the job.
The experience I had a couple of months ago, I was back home, and I
met with the Michigan Restaurant Association. There were 8 or 10 folks
sitting around and telling me about the issues that are important to
them. They said they were dying because of the EPA, because of the FDA,
because of the EEOC, because of the ACA, because of the overtime rule
from DOL, and because of the CFPB. I quickly surmised that the
restaurant industry is dying, and it is death by acronyms. That is what
is happening in this country. That is why we are not creating jobs.
If you come in from the airport, you come across the 14th Street
bridge and you enter the city, all you see is cranes. There was never a
recession in Washington. Today, there are 277,000 people who write and
enforce rules in this country in Washington, D.C., and around the
country. That is more than the entire employee base of the VA.
A few minutes ago, my friend from Tennessee said that all of these
great regulations have saved our country. Well, if that had happened, I
would have expected a different result on November 8.
A few minutes ago, my friend from Georgia, who I was proud to serve
on the Judiciary Committee with, talked about all of the problems with
our plan.

{time} 1515

I say to my colleague, the next time you pull up in front of your
favorite Outback Steakhouse restaurant and it is closed, it is not
because the cook quit, it is not because of the cost of beef, and it is
not because the restaurant was poorly managed. It is because of death
by acronyms. I ask everyone to support H.R. 26. It is time we rein in
unelected bureaucrats, follow the Constitution, and create some jobs.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to see my friend,
Mr. Trott, leaving the Judiciary Committee. We have appreciated his
being there and we hate to see him go, but the gentleman is going on to
bigger and better things.
I would say to the gentleman that it is surprising to me that the
Bloomberg Government reports show that of all of the job cut
announcements made by industry during the year of 2016--and that was a
year, by the way, which was not unlike previous years. Basically, the
Obama administration has created about 1.9 million new private sector
jobs per year.
I am just startled by this statistic here for the year 2016 as far as
the number of job cut announcements by reason. The reason given for
government regulation being responsible for the job cut is 1,580. That
is out of 1.9 million new jobs created during the entire 2016 year,
1,580 jobs lost due to government regulation. That's almost as many as
were lost due to the listeria outbreak, legal trouble, or grain
downturn. Government regulation, 1,580 jobs lost out of 1.9 million
created.
So this argument that we keep hearing from my friends on the other
side of the aisle that there is a strangulation or a stranglehold on
job creation by Obama's regulations, nothing could be more false than
that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on
our side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Georgia has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 26, the REINS Act.
This bill is the beginning of making America great again. That is
because it puts Americans back in charge of the laws being imposed upon
them.
How does the legislation do that?
Under our Constitution, we have three branches. The executive branch
is supposed to enforce the law. The judicial branch is supposed to
resolve disputes arising under the law. The legislature--this House and
the Senate, the branch directly elected by the people--is supposed to
make the law.
Over the last decades, we have seen more and more of the lawmaking in
this country migrate to the unelected bureaucrats in the executive
branch. Those bureaucrats churn out regulation after regulation that
have the full force and effect of law. The problem with this setup is
that the people of this country are supposed to consent to laws being
imposed upon them. They do that through their elected representatives
in Congress. In short, this legislation goes to the heart of what self-
rule is all about.
Let me be clear: this legislation does not end regulation. It is the
beginning of accountability for regulation. If there is a good
regulation that a Member believes makes sense and does not unduly
burden jobs and wages, that Member may vote to approve the regulation.
If the people that Member represents disagree, they get to hold him or
her accountable at the ballot box.
My colleagues across the aisle should not fear taking responsibility
for the laws and regulations coming out of Washington, D.C. Over the
last 7 years, Washington regulations have hurt many working families.
We have seen coal miners and power plant workers lose good jobs. We
have seen small, Main Street community banks and credit unions forced
into mergers. We have seen farmers worried about puddles on their
farms. We have seen people lose their health insurance and their
doctors, and we have seen the Little Sisters of the Poor have their
religious freedom threatened--all without the consent of the people.
It is time for the people, Mr. Chairman, to put the American people
back in charge and not the unelected bureaucrats. Let's take the power
away from Washington. Let's restore self-rule. Let's pass this bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have just tallied up the
number of jobs that would be created by passage of this legislation. I
did that by multiplying by eight the figure of 1,580, which is the
number of jobs lost due to government regulation in 2016. If I multiply
that eight times, I come up with 12,640 jobs. That is how many jobs
would be created by this legislation--a paucity.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the REINS
Act, legislation that I and many of my colleagues are proud to have
cosponsored to help bring expensive and expansive regulations under
control.

[[Page H129]]

Over the past several years, major regulations have cost small
businesses, States, local government, and individuals billions of
dollars and have cost them jobs. So this is a commonsense bill to
enhance transparency and give Americans greater say in their
government, and I thank Representative Collins of Georgia and Chairman
Goodlatte for their leadership on this issue.
By requiring Congress to approve any major regulation with an annual
economic impact of $100 million or more on the economy, the bill opens
the process so our constituents--the people--can have their voice heard
in the process.
I'm also pleased an amendment I offered last year, which was accepted
by this body, is included in the bill's base text, section 801. That
provision requires more transparency by forcing agencies to publish the
data and justification they are using to issue the rule. It's important
the American people have access to the information in which these
conclusions are made. Section 801 directs the regulatory bodies to post
publicly the data, studies, and analyses that they use to come up with
their rules and conclusions so that we can all be on the same page.
Transparency.

Too often I hear concerns from Iowans about how overreaching
regulations are hurting their farms and businesses and impacting their
daily lives. From how our kids are taught, how we manage our personal
finances, or even drain the water in our communities, we have seen how
regulations and those who craft them have an enormous impact.
I hear from constituents how these regulations are out of touch,
don't reflect the basic, fundamental understanding of the important
sectors driving our economy or the daily lives of Iowans and all
Americans. These regulations, which have the full force of law, are
putting Americans out of work and increasing costs for consumers.
The REINS Act is an important, commonsense bill to help address this
problem. We must do more. I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte's commitment
to work with me on my Fingerprints bill to ensure further transparency
and accountability by naming those who author and write these
regulations. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Representative Collins of
Georgia for prioritizing the REINS Act.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 2.8 million civil servants out
there. Americans who work for the Federal Government go to work every
day. They work hard and play by the rules. They have a good, middle
class job. Your jobs are at stake, Federal employees.
There are those who say that we have too many Federal employees.
Well, the number of Federal employees that we have now is at the same
level as they were in 2004, which was when President Bush was in
office. Basically we are at a 47-year low, as far as the number of
Federal employees, since 2013.
The Federal regulatory regime, which is just simply Federal workers--
Federal civil servants--is not out of control, but your jobs are going
to be lost when these Republicans finish doing what they want to do to
these regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his fine work
on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the REINS Act because
it fulfills a promise Congress made to American businessowners to get
onerous regulations off the backs of job creators.
It sets a very reasonable standard. If a new regulation has an
economic impact of $100 million or more, it needs to come to Congress
for an up-or-down vote. Congress will then have a say. We will debate
the merits, and then we will decide.
The Obama administration handed down a record-breaking 600 major new
regulations imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on the
U.S. economy and millions of hours of compliance busywork on the
employers and employees across the country.
All of that excessive red tape places a huge burden on small- and
medium-sized businesses that create jobs in New Jersey, the State I
represent, and across the Nation. I have toured quite a few businesses,
and the consensus is clear: let American workers innovate, build, and
create, and not spend time complying with regulations that are
impractical and often a waste of time and money.
The REINS Act is constitutional. It does not violate the Chadha
doctrine because it does not permit Congress to overturn valid
regulations. Also, a joint resolution satisfies the bicameralism and
presentment requirements of the Constitution.
The REINS Act will bring an important check against out-of-control
Federal regulations and foster stronger economic growth. It is an
important start to the agenda of the 115th Congress, and I urge all of
our colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have
remaining on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Virginia has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today with an urgent plea to my
colleagues. We were elected by the good men and women of the United
States who believe in our vision of America and who believe in our
dedication to doing whatever it takes to ensure the American Dream is
alive and achievable. It is for these reasons the REINS Act must pass.
Federal regulations imposed on American the job creators and
households, an estimated $1.9 trillion burden in 2015.
Who pays that?
The American citizen does. It costs on an average, as Chairman
Goodlatte brought up, $15,000 per U.S. household.
Could that money be better used to offset the cost of a college
education or maybe the staggering cost of health care due to the
Affordable Care Act?
Let me give you a real-life illustration from my district. A couple
of years ago, a constituent, a dairy farmer, was targeted by an
incredibly vague, broad, and costly EPA rule called WOTUS, Waters of
the United States. The EPA sued and won this case not due to
environmental damage, but due to the vagueness of this rule and the
determination in court. It cost my constituent over $200,000 in fines
and court costs for a natural depression in his pasture that the EPA
determined could qualify as navigable waters.
The rule states that any water or any land that becomes seasonably
wet is affected. I live in Florida. We get 54 inches of rain a year.
That is my whole State of Florida.

This is downright outrageous. This is just one example of the many
times the EPA has overstepped its authority by enforcing vague
regulations unfairly on individuals. The REINS Act will prevent these
costly job-killing regulations from going into effect and safeguard
against Federal bureaucrats imposing the heaviest burdens on the
American economy, and this will increase the livelihood of the American
people.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the REINS Act,
H.R. 26, for any number of reasons.
I can't help but point out that I have heard my esteemed colleagues
in opposition to this bill refer on multiple occasions to the Federal
bureaucracy as a well-oiled machine. Mr. Chairman, there are, indeed,
well-oiled machines that undergird this institution, but I would submit
the Federal bureaucracy is not one of those.
We have heard that the regulatory burden, as it relates to the loss
of jobs, is equal to a listeria outbreak. What I would submit is that
if we could avoid a listeria outbreak, would we not choose to do just
that?

[[Page H130]]

{time} 1530

While looking at the loss of jobs as related to Federal regulation,
we overstep the argument by avoiding the jobs not created as a result
of Federal regulations. Should these things also not be amongst the
items that we consider?
A wise man once said that the bureaucracy will continue to expand to
meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy. In 2017, in the United
States, indeed, it seems we find ourselves in that very situation.
Arguments that the REINS Act is contrary to the Constitution, I would
submit, are actually 180 degrees from the truth. In fact, Article I of
the Constitution gives the power to make law to this legislative branch
of our government and gives the power to generate revenue, here, as
well as spend.
The definition of ``law,'' according to the Oxford Dictionary, is:
``The system of rules which a particular country or community
recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may
enforce by the imposition of penalties.''
I will submit that the very regulatory overreach that we consider
here today is, in fact, tantamount to law and extraconstitutional in
and of itself.
My esteemed colleague from Pennsylvania suggested, and I agree, that
the REINS Act is but a good start. The power to spend is Article I. The
power to make laws is Article I.
REINS is a rudder on the ship of constitutionality that will right
that ship and move it only in the correct direction. Regulations that
have the power to take liberty or property rights or the wealth of
those earned by their own labor are tantamount to law and, indeed,
extraordinary constitutionally as it relates to an executive branch
entity, and they should not be exercised.
Mr. Chairman, we hear that the people's House is responsible for this
and the people's House is responsible for that. Well, the people's
House is to ensure that the people have a voice in the matters of
spending and lawmaking that our Founders who laid out Article I of the
Constitution envisioned, and currently, that is simply not the case.
H.R. 26 is simply a step back towards that right direction of
constitutionality.
With that in mind, I strongly support the legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my friend.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just spoke about liberty.
My friend from Pennsylvania spoke about self-rule. Today we are talking
about bureaucrats, but what we really should be talking about is the
effect of this bill on our agencies in Homeland Security and our
intelligence agencies, given the unprecedented intrusion by the
Russians in our elections and other affairs of this Nation. If we don't
stay focused on that liberty and the foundation for freedom so that
another country doesn't interfere with our affairs, we as Members of
Congress are ignoring the oath that we just took 2 days ago.
So I would suggest to my friends that I appreciate there can be
overregulation, but I would suggest you have to look closely at how
this bill affects our ability to protect our liberties and our freedom.
I am afraid it affects it badly, in the face of interference that we
haven't seen from another country since 1776.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I come from the private
sector; so when I come to the House and I listen to the debate going
back and forth, I almost feel like I am somebody not from a different
planet, but from a different galaxy.
When we talk about overregulation, when we talk about the effects of
unelected bureaucrats leveling on the American people $2 trillion and
an impact to the economy, then somebody ought to sit up and listen.
All we are talking about is scrutiny, scrutiny of any piece of
legislation, any executive order that comes out that is going to have
an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. Around here, $100
million sounds like nothing. From where I am from, it is unbelievable
that we would even think that $100 million should be the point that we
look at.
What could be more common sense than to look at the heavy burden we
are putting on everyday Americans and saying that, somehow, unelected
bureaucrats who have never walked in their shoes, who have never done
their job, who have never worried about meeting a payroll, who have
never had to worry about regulation and taxation that make it
impossible for them to compete, these poor, stupid folks just don't get
it?
705,687 people in your districts are who you represent. Whether they
voted for you or not is not the point. The point is we represent them.
Why in the world would Congress cede its power to the executive branch
and to unelected bureaucrats to determine what the American people are
going to be burdened with? It is just common sense. Why can't we not
see what is right in front of us right now?
I invite you to please go home to your districts, walk in those
shops, walk in those little towns, talk to those people and find out
the two things that really inhibit them from being successful are
overtaxation and overregulation. We can handle both those things right
here in the people's House.
This is not a Democratic House. This is not a Republican House. This
is America's House. We should be looking at things that benefit the
American people.
If we truly want to act in a bipartisan way, then let's stop this
back-and-forth debate about what Republicans want, what Democrats want,
and let's talk about what is good for the American people. That is who
sent us. That is whose responsibility we have on our shoulders. If we
can't do that, we ought to go home.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As far as unelected bureaucrats that we have heard people rail
against, speaker after speaker today being concerned, those are nothing
more than the civil servants that make our government work. They
protect our water, protect our air. They protect us, as a matter of
fact--the FBI, the law enforcement. These are good people who go to
work every day, work hard, like my dad did, for instance. He was a
civil servant. I guess you could call him an unelected bureaucrat. He
did everything during his job that he needed to do, and he retired with
dignity.

There are so many others who work for the post office. They work for
TSA, Homeland Security. They are doing nothing but working a job
honestly, and they deserve more than to be referred to derisively. We
need them.
Mr. Chair, I am in opposition to this legislation. We need real
solutions for real problems. In stark contrast, however, the REINS Act
attempts to address a nonexistent problem with a very dangerous
solution.
We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and
opportunity, not legislation that snatches that away.
We need sensible regulations that protect American families from
economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end.
We need workplace safety regulations that ensure hardworking
Americans who go to work each day are protected from hazardous
environments on the job.
We need strong regulations that protect the safety of the food that
we eat and the air that we breathe and the water that we drink.
Unfortunately, H.R. 26 does nothing to advance those critical goals.
This explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this
legislation, including Americans for Financial Reform; the American
Lung Association; Consumers Union; The Humane Society of the United
States; the League of Conservation Voters; Public Citizen; the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Earthjustice; the
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards; the American Public Health
Association; the Environmental Defense Action Fund; the Center for
American Progress; and the Trust for America's Health. I, therefore,
urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 26.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
During this debate, my friends on the other side of the aisle have
raised quite a few false alarms:

[[Page H131]]

If this bill passes, all important regulation will stop, they say.
But that is not true. All regulation that is worthy of Congress'
approval will continue;
If this bill passes, expert decisionmaking will stop because Congress
will have the final say on new, major regulations, not Washington
bureaucrats. That is not true.
Congress will have the benefit of the best evidence and arguments
expert agencies can offer in support of their new regulations. Congress
is capable of determining whether that evidence and those arguments are
good or not and deciding what finally will become law. That is the job
our Founding Fathers entrusted to us in the Constitution. We should not
shirk from it.
I will tell you, though, what will stop if this bill becomes law: the
endless avalanche of new, major regulations that impose massive,
unjustified costs that crush jobs, crush wages, and crush the spirit of
America's families and small-business owners. Think about what that
will mean to real Americans who have suffered the real burdens of
overreaching regulations.
Support the American people and listen to the major organizations
across the country, which I include in the Record, who support H.R. 26,
the REINS Act.
Support the American people. Support the REINS Act.

Support for H.R. 26, the REINS Act

American Center for Law and Justice, American Commitment,
American Energy Alliance, American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers, Americans for Limited Government, Americans
for Prosperity--Key Vote, Americans for Tax Reform,
Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General
Contractors, Club for Growth--Key Vote, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Credit Union National Association,
Family Business Coalition, FreedomWorks--Key Vote.
Heating Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International (HARDI), Heritage Action--Key Vote, Let Freedom
Ring, National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED),
National Association of Home Builders, National Center for
Policy Analysis, National Roofing Contractors Association,
National Taxpayers Union--Key Vote, R Street, SBE Council,
Campaign For Liberty.
____

Small Business &

Entrepreneurship Council,

Vienna, VA, January 3, 2017.
Hon. Doug Collins,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Collins: Serious regulatory reform is
needed to revitalize entrepreneurship, small business growth,
our economy, and quality job creation. Therefore, the Small
Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) strongly
supports the Regulations from the Executive In Need of
Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2017.
U.S. entrepreneurship and startup activity are in a frail
state. While economic uncertainty and difficulties accessing
capital present barriers to new business formation, excessive
government regulation drives uncertainty and creates new
obstacles. When the policy ecosystem becomes noxious for
startups and small businesses, our entire economy suffers.
For existing businesses, overregulation is driving costs
higher and undermining confidence, investment and growth. The
system is out-of-control, and common sense tools and
solutions are needed to rein in the explosive growth of
federal red tape.
The REINS Act requires that Congress take an up-or-down
vote on every new major rule--defined as having an economic
impact of $100 million or more--before such a rule could be
enforced. This substantive regulatory reform measure would
serve as an important check on the regulatory system, and
have a positive effect in terms of how regulation affects
small businesses, and therefore, consumers, America's
workforce and the economy.
The REINS Act will bring needed accountability to our
nation's regulatory system, and SBE Council thanks you for
your leadership in spearheading this important legislative
effort.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President and CEO.
____

National Roofing

Contractors Association,

Washington, DC, January 3, 2017.
To All Members of the House of Representatives.
Dear Representative, The National Roofing Contractors
Association (NRCA) strongly supports the Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act and urges you to
support this legislation when it comes to the House floor for
a vote.
Established in 1886, NRCA is one of the nation's oldest
trade associations and the voice of professional roofing
contractors worldwide. NRCA has about 3,500 contractors in
all 50 states who are typically small, privately held
companies with the average member employing 45 people and
attaining sales of about $4.5 million per year.
The roofing industry has faced an avalanche of new
regulations from numerous government agencies in recent
years. The cumulative burden of often counterproductive
regulations is highly disruptive to entrepreneurs who seek to
start or grow businesses that provide high-quality jobs. Most
important, federal agencies have failed to work with industry
representatives to provide greater flexibility for employers
in achieving regulatory goals and minimizing adverse impacts
on economic growth and job creation.
NRCA strongly supports regulatory reform to provide small
and midsized businesses with much-needed relief from
burdensome regulations, and the REINS Act is a key component
of regulatory relief. It would require Congress to approve,
with an up-or-down vote, any new major regulation issued by a
federal agency before the regulation would become effective.
Under the REINS Act, a major regulation is defined as any
rule that is estimated to have an economic impact of at least
$100 million on the private sector; would result in a major
increase in costs or prices; and would have significant
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity or U.S. competitiveness.
NRCA believes the REINS Act, by requiring major regulations
undergo a vote in Congress to become effective, would
substantially increase accountability among federal agencies
seeking to issue new regulations. This legislation would help
provide employers in the roofing industry with the certainty
they need to invest in their businesses and create more jobs.
NRCA supports the REINS Act and urges you to vote for this
legislation in the House. If you have any questions or need
more information, please contact NRCA's Washington, D.C.,
office.

Dennis Conway,

Commercial Roofers Inc., Las Vegas,
NRCA Chairman of the Board.
____

Associated Builders

and Contractors, Inc.,

Washington, DC, 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.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, H.R. 26, the ``Regulations from the Executive
in Need of

[[Page H132]]

Scrutiny Act of 2017,'' otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend
the Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress
pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70
legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take
effect.
Simply put, H.R. 26 would impose unworkable deadlines for the
enactment of a major rule under procedures that could charitably be
referred to as convoluted.
Under this bill, the House may only consider a resolution for a major
rule on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Keep in mind that
typically 80 major rules are promulgated annually. Yet, there may be as
little as just 15 days available to consider such measures based on the
majority's legislative calendar for the current year.
Furthermore, Congress may only consider such resolutions within 70
legislative days of receiving a major rule. This process would
constructively end rulemaking as we know it.
Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the
aisle say we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation--is
because they claim regulations stifle economic growth.
For example, they point to the outgoing administration and say that
regulations promulgated during its tenure have hurt our Nation's
economy.
What they fail to tell the American people is that it was the
Republican George Bush's administration's economic policies that caused
the Great Recession.
Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that
facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our
Nation's economy.
It led to millions of home foreclosures and devastated neighborhoods
across America. In fact, it nearly caused a global economic meltdown.
Nevertheless, as a consequence of strong regulatory policies
implemented by President Obama through such measures as the Dodd-Frank
Act, our Nation has recovered to a point where the unemployment has
been cut nearly in half to less than 5 percent.
Yet, the REINS Act would reverse these gains by empowering Congress
to control and override the rulemaking process, even in the absence of
any substantive expertise.
More than 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and
administrative law have warned in connection with substantively
identical legislation considered in the last Congress, that without
this expertise, any congressional disapproval is more likely to reflect
the political power of special interests.
Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that
Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act
likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of
Article I of the Constitution.
As a leading expert on administrative law states: ``The reality is
that the act is intended to enable a single House of Congress to
control the implementation of the laws through the rulemaking process.
Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of separation of powers, under
which the Constitution entrusts the writing of the laws to the
legislative branch and the implementation of the laws to the executive
branch.''
The REINS Act will further encourage corporate giants to hold our
country hostage through a deregulatory, profits-first agenda and
facilitate a political influence process rivaling the destructive
industrial monopolies from the past century.
In sum, H.R. 26, like the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act'' we considered
yesterday on the House floor, is yet another blatant gift to big
business to weaken the critical regulatory protections that ensure the
safety of the air we breathe, the cars we drive, the toys we give our
children, and the food we eat.
Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
conceived bill.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 26

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for
and transparency in the Federal regulatory process. Section 1
of article I of the United States Constitution grants all
legislative powers to Congress. Over time, Congress has
excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing
to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability
for the content of the laws it passes. By requiring a vote in
Congress, the REINS Act will result in more carefully drafted
and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and
a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the
American people for the laws imposed upon them.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING.

Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING

``Sec.
``801. Congressional review.
``802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules.
``803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules.
``804. Definitions.
``805. Judicial review.
``806. Exemption for monetary policy.
``807. Effective date of certain rules.

``Sec. 801. Congressional review

``(a)(1)(A) Before a rule may take effect, the Federal
agency promulgating such rule shall publish in the Federal
Register a list of information on which the rule is based,
including data, scientific and economic studies, and cost-
benefit analyses, and identify how the public can access such
information online, and shall submit to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing--
``(i) a copy of the rule;
``(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
``(iii) a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor
rule, including an explanation of the classification
specifically addressing each criteria for a major rule
contained within sections 804(2)(A), 804(2)(B), and
804(2)(C);
``(iv) a list of any other related regulatory actions
intended to implement the same statutory provision or
regulatory objective as well as the individual and aggregate
economic effects of those actions; and
``(v) the proposed effective date of the rule.
``(B) On the date of the submission of the report under
subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule
shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to
each House of Congress--
``(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the
rule, if any, including an analysis of any jobs added or
lost, differentiating between public and private sector jobs;
``(ii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 603, 604,
605, 607, and 609 of this title;
``(iii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 202, 203,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
``(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under
any other Act and any relevant Executive orders.
``(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph
(A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the
chairman and ranking member of each standing committee with
jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives
or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law
under which the rule is issued.
``(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on
each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction by the end
of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date.
The report of the Comptroller General shall include an
assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural steps
required by paragraph (1)(B) and an assessment of whether the
major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on private-
sector activity.
``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller
General's report under subparagraph (A).
``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall take effect upon enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802 or as
provided for in the rule following enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is
later.
``(4) A nonmajor rule shall take effect as provided by
section 803 after submission to Congress under paragraph (1).
``(5) If a joint resolution of approval relating to a major
rule is not enacted within the period provided in subsection
(b)(2), then a joint resolution of approval relating to the
same rule may not be considered under this chapter in the
same Congress by either the House of Representatives or the
Senate.
``(b)(1) A major rule shall not take effect unless the
Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval described
under section 802.
``(2) If a joint resolution described in subsection (a) is
not enacted into law by the end of 70 session days or
legislative days, as applicable, beginning on the date on
which the report referred to in section 801(a)(1)(A) is
received by Congress (excluding days either House of Congress
is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of
Congress), then the rule described in that resolution shall
be deemed not to be approved and such rule shall not take
effect.
``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a major rule may
take effect for one 90-calendar-day period if the President
makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written
notice of such determination to the Congress.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the
President by Executive order that the major rule should take
effect because such rule is--
``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;

[[Page H133]]

``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
``(C) necessary for national security; or
``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under
this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under
section 802.
``(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review
otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any
rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date
occurring--
``(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days; or
``(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60
legislative days,

before the date the Congress is scheduled to adjourn a
session of Congress through the date on which the same or
succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, sections
802 and 803 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding
session of Congress.
``(2)(A) In applying sections 802 and 803 for purposes of
such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1)
shall be treated as though--
``(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register on--
``(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day; or
``(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the
15th legislative day,

after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
``(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress
under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report
shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
``(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take
effect as otherwise provided by law (including other
subsections of this section).

``Sec. 802. Congressional approval procedure for major rules

``(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution addressing a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii) that--
``(A) bears no preamble;
``(B) bears the following title (with blanks filled as
appropriate): `Approving the rule submitted by ___ relating
to ___.';
``(C) includes after its resolving clause only the
following (with blanks filled as appropriate): `That Congress
approves the rule submitted by ___ relating to ___.'; and
``(D) is introduced pursuant to paragraph (2).
``(2) After a House of Congress receives a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii), the majority leader of that House (or his
or her respective designee) shall introduce (by request, if
appropriate) a joint resolution described in paragraph (1)--
``(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, within 3
legislative days; and
``(B) in the case of the Senate, within 3 session days.
``(3) A joint resolution described in paragraph (1) shall
not be subject to amendment at any stage of proceeding.
``(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred in each House of Congress to the committees
having jurisdiction over the provision of law under which the
rule is issued.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee or committees to
which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been
referred have not reported it at the end of 15 session days
after its introduction, such committee or committees shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
resolution and it shall be placed on the calendar. A vote on
final passage of the resolution shall be taken on or before
the close of the 15th session day after the resolution is
reported by the committee or committees to which it was
referred, or after such committee or committees have been
discharged from further consideration of the resolution.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee or committees to
which a joint resolution is referred have reported, or when a
committee or committees are discharged (under subsection (c))
from further consideration of a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), it is at any time thereafter in order (even
though a previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to the consideration of
the joint resolution, and all points of order against the
joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint
resolution) are waived. The motion is not subject to
amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to
proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to
the consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the
joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the
Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the House of Representatives, if any committee to
which a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has been
referred has not reported it to the House at the end of 15
legislative days after its introduction, such committee shall
be discharged from further consideration of the joint
resolution, and it shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar. On the second and fourth Thursdays of each month it
shall be in order at any time for the Speaker to recognize a
Member who favors passage of a joint resolution that has
appeared on the calendar for at least 5 legislative days to
call up that joint resolution for immediate consideration in
the House without intervention of any point of order. When so
called up a joint resolution shall be considered as read and
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered to its passage without
intervening motion. It shall not be in order to reconsider
the vote on passage. If a vote on final passage of the joint
resolution has not been taken by the third Thursday on which
the Speaker may recognize a Member under this subsection,
such vote shall be taken on that day.
``(f)(1) If, before passing a joint resolution described in
subsection (a), one House receives from the other a joint
resolution having the same text, then--
``(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee; and
``(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the
same as if no joint resolution had been received from the
other House until the vote on passage, when the joint
resolution received from the other House shall supplant the
joint resolution of the receiving House.
``(2) This subsection shall not apply to the House of
Representatives if the joint resolution received from the
Senate is a revenue measure.
``(g) If either House has not taken a vote on final passage
of the joint resolution by the last day of the period
described in section 801(b)(2), then such vote shall be taken
on that day.
``(h) This section and section 803 are enacted by
Congress--
``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is
deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively,
but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be
followed in that House in the case of a joint resolution
described in subsection (a) and superseding other rules only
where explicitly so; and
``(2) with full recognition of the Constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to
the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of
that House.

``Sec. 803. Congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor
rules

``(a) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the
period beginning on the date on which the report referred to
in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60
days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is
adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress),
the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
`That Congress disapproves the nonmajor rule submitted by the
___ relating to ___, and such rule shall have no force or
effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
``(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with
jurisdiction.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred
a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not
reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint
resolution) at the end of 15 session days after the date of
introduction of the joint resolution, such committee may be
discharged from further consideration of such joint
resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members
of the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be placed on
the calendar.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is
discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration
of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at
any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion
to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all
points of order against the joint resolution (and against
consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion
is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or
to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other
business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion

[[Page H134]]

to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is
agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished
business of the Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the Senate, the procedure specified in subsection
(c) or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint
resolution respecting a nonmajor rule--
``(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning
with the applicable submission or publication date; or
``(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was
submitted during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1),
after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the
15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress
first convenes.
``(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint
resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that
House receives from the other House a joint resolution
described in subsection (a), then the following procedures
shall apply:
``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee.
``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in
subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if
no joint resolution had been received from the other House;
but
``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.

``Sec. 804. Definitions

``For purposes of this chapter:
``(1) The term `Federal agency' means any agency as that
term is defined in section 551(1).
``(2) The term `major rule' means any rule, including an
interim final rule, that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to
result in--
``(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more;
``(B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
``(C) significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
``(3) The term `nonmajor rule' means any rule that is not a
major rule.
``(4) The term `rule' has the meaning given such term in
section 551, except that such term does not include--
``(A) any rule of particular applicability, including a
rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages,
prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate or
financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or
acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures
bearing on any of the foregoing;
``(B) any rule relating to agency management or personnel;
or
``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
``(5) The term `submission date or publication date',
except as otherwise provided in this chapter, means--
``(A) in the case of a major rule, the date on which the
Congress receives the report submitted under section
801(a)(1); and
``(B) in the case of a nonmajor rule, the later of--
``(i) the date on which the Congress receives the report
submitted under section 801(a)(1); and
``(ii) the date on which the nonmajor rule is published in
the Federal Register, if so published.

``Sec. 805. Judicial review

``(a) No determination, finding, action, or omission under
this chapter shall be subject to judicial review.
``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a court may determine
whether a Federal agency has completed the necessary
requirements under this chapter for a rule to take effect.
``(c) The enactment of a joint resolution of approval under
section 802 shall not be interpreted to serve as a grant or
modification of statutory authority by Congress for the
promulgation of a rule, shall not extinguish or affect any
claim, whether substantive or procedural, against any alleged
defect in a rule, and shall not form part of the record
before the court in any judicial proceeding concerning a rule
except for purposes of determining whether or not the rule is
in effect.

``Sec. 806. Exemption for monetary policy

``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to rules that concern
monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open
Market Committee.

``Sec. 807. Effective date of certain rules

``Notwithstanding section 801--
``(1) any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes,
or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial,
recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting,
fishing, or camping; or
``(2) any rule other than a major rule which an agency for
good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,

shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.''.

SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF RULES SUBJECT TO SECTION 802 OF
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Budgetary effects of rules subject to section 802 of
title 5, united states code.--Any rules subject to the
congressional approval procedure set forth in section 802 of
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, affecting budget
authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed to be
effective unless it is not approved in accordance with such
section.''.

SEC. 5. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY OF RULES.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to determine, as of the date of
the enactment of this Act--
(1) how many rules (as such term is defined in section 804
of title 5, United States Code) were in effect;
(2) how many major rules (as such term is defined in
section 804 of title 5, United States Code) were in effect;
and
(3) the total estimated economic cost imposed by all such
rules.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to Congress that contains the
findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Sections 3 and 4, and the amendments made by such sections,
shall take effect beginning on the date that is 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 115-1. Each such amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 115-1.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Subparagraph (A) of section 804(2) of title 5, United
States Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3
of the bill, is amended to read as follows:
``(A) an annual cost on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more, adjusted annually for inflation;''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I offer this manager's amendment to assure that, just as the REINS
Act strengthens Congress' check on rules that impose major new costs on
the economy, it does not unduly delay the effectiveness of major new
deregulatory actions, those that alleviate regulatory burdens of $100
million or more.
When first introduced in the 112th Congress, the REINS Act
incorporated the definition of major rule in the underlying
Congressional Review Act--generally, a rule that has ``an annual effect
on the economy of $100,000,000 or more.''
This was done in the interest of consistency with prior terminology,
and it

[[Page H135]]

swept in both actions that imposed costs and actions that lifted costs.
But, especially after the regulatory onslaught we have witnessed during
the Obama administration, it is time to revise that definition.
We should assure that the REINS Act focuses Congress' highest
attention on the rules that hurt the economy the most: those that
impose $100 million or more in costs per year. We should likewise make
sure that the REINS Act does not impose additional hurdles in the way
of the most important and desperately needed deregulatory actions:
those that free the economy of $100 million or more in annual
regulatory burdens. A deregulatory action with that level of economic
effect is one that Congress should be encouraging, not slowing down.
This refinement of the REINS Act's major rule definition is also
needed to assure consistency with the major Administrative Procedure
Act reform legislation the House is due to consider next week, the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017. That measure already modernizes
the major rule standard for APA purposes to $100 million or more in
annual costs imposed on the economy. The REINS Act should mirror it.
I urge my colleagues to support this manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1545

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the Goodlatte amendment clarifies
that a major rule is any rule with an annual cost on the economy of
$100 million or more adjusted for inflation. This amendment revises the
bill's definition for a major rule to include any rule with an annual
cost of $100 million or more as determined by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, also known as OIRA.
I oppose this amendment because it focuses only on the cost of
regulatory protections while completely overlooking the monetary
benefits of these critical rules. It also strips OIRA's ability to
consider the benefits of a rule in connection with a rule's cost. I
don't understand the logic of that.
In 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized cost-only
regulatory estimates as misleading, unbalanced, and having serious
methodological problems. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen,
likewise observed in 2015 that ignoring the benefits of regulation is
akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because
groceries cost money. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Even Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has
stated that ``many of these rules we need, they're important for the
economy, and we support them,'' conceding that the benefits of
regulatory protections must be considered hand in hand with their
costs.
Indeed, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the
Office of Management and Budget regularly has reported to Congress that
the benefits of regulations far exceed their costs. During the three
hearings on the REINS Act in previous Congresses, we heard from three
distinguished witnesses that the benefits of regulation routinely
outweigh their costs, according to cost-benefit analysis done by the
Office of Management and Budget under administrations of both parties.
For example, in the 112th Congress, Sally Katzen, a former
administrator of the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, testified that ``the numbers are striking: according to OMB,
the benefits from the regulations issued during the ten-year period''--
from fiscal year 1999 through 2009--``ranged from $128 billion to $616
billion.''
I will repeat. Benefits from regulations ranged from $128 billion to
$616 billion.
``Therefore, even if one uses OMB's highest estimate of costs and its
lowest estimate of benefits, the regulations issued over the past ten
years have produced net benefits of $73 billion to our society.''
Those are the words of Sally Katzen. That 10-year timeframe
encompasses the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.
We also heard in the 112th Congress from David Goldston, a former
Republican House committee chief of staff, who testified that
``administrations under both parties have reviewed the aggregate impact
of regulations and found their benefits to have exceeded their costs
(and not all benefits are quantifiable).''
Their testimony is bolstered by the Office of Management and Budget's
2016 Draft Report to Congress, which notes that estimated annual
benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB over the past
decade estimated annual benefits of regulatory protections are between
$269 billion and $872 billion, while regulatory costs are between $74
billion and $110 billion.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, once again, because it focuses
only on the cost of regulatory protections while completely overlooking
the monetary benefits of these critical rules, and for that reason I
oppose my colleague's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time
only to urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and not
lose the opportunity to benefit from deregulatory reforms that will
grow our economy and save America's economy hundreds of millions of
dollars. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Messer

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 115-1.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Section 801(a)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code, as
proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, is amended
by inserting after ``the Federal agency promulgating such
rule'' the following: ``shall satisfy the requirements of
section 808 and''.
Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, as proposed to be
amended by section 3 of the bill, is amended by adding at the
end the following (and amending the table of sections
accordingly):

``Sec. 808. Regulatory cut-go requirement

``In making any new rule, the agency making the rule shall
identify a rule or rules that may be amended or repealed to
completely offset any annual costs of the new rule to the
United States economy. Before the new rule may take effect,
the agency shall make each such repeal or amendment. In
making such an amendment or repeal, the agency shall comply
with the requirements of subchapter II of chapter 5, but the
agency may consolidate proceedings under subchapter with
proceedings on the new rule.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his
help on this amendment as well. It is an amendment designed to take an
already very good bill and make it just a little better.
A good friend of mine, former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, used to
say ``you'd be amazed how much government you'll never miss'' when
talking about reducing the size of government bureaucracy.
So much of government's excess is created by unelected officials who
wield enormous influence over our everyday lives. Last year, Federal
agencies issued 18 rules and regulations for every one law that passed
Congress. That is a grand total of 3,853 regulations in 2016 alone. In
2015, Federal regulations cost the American economy nearly $1.9
trillion--T, trillion dollars--in lost growth and productivity.
Think about that for a second. A $1.9 trillion tax, a government
burden on the American people. That means lost jobs, stagnant wages,
and decreasing benefits for workers.
My amendment looks to help change all that. Very simply, my amendment
requires every agency issuing a new rule to first identify, then repeal
or amend at least one existing rule to offset any annual costs the new
rule would have on the U.S. economy. This isn't some new radical idea.
President-

[[Page H136]]

elect Trump announced his administration will implement a new practice
that for every new regulation, two would have to be repealed.
Governments in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the
Netherlands have all implemented similar versions of one-in/one-out
when addressing new rules and regulations. In fact, in Canada,
bureaucrats used the new direction to find and cut more red tape than
was even required by the law. My amendment gives the new administration
that same flexibility.
Mr. Chair, it is past time we stop bureaucratic abuse and shift the
balance of power from government back to the people, where it belongs.
That can start today by passing the REINS Act and putting our
government on a path to reduce the amount of red tape that our
businesses and the American people deal with every day.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment
and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's
amendment, which would require that agencies offset the cost of new
rules, no matter how critical or mundane these protections may be,
prior to promulgating new rules. This proposal, also referred to as
``regulatory cut-go,'' appears as title 2 of H.R. 1155, the Searching
for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act, or
the SCRUB Act, that was introduced in the previous Congress.
In the context of a veto threat of that bill, the Obama
administration cautioned that this requirement would make the process
of retrospective regulatory review less productive and, in the process,
create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty, and that it would
increase costs for businesses and for States, local and tribal
governments, and it would also impede commonsense protections for the
American public.
By enacting Federal statutes, tasking agencies with responsibilities,
Congress authorizes agencies to carry out matters that are too complex,
routine, or technical for Congress itself to administrate. We must
ensure that agencies have the proper flexibility to issue new
protections without encumbering other regulations with political
obstructions. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my good friend and the chairman of the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
offering this amendment, and I rise in support of it.
The cumulative burden of Federal regulation will surely be reduced by
the REINS Act, but that burden has two elements: the burden being added
by new regulations and the burden already there.
This amendment adds a useful provision to the REINS Act to address
the elimination of unnecessary burdens already in the Code of Federal
Regulations. It does so, moreover, in a manner that parallels
President-elect Trump's promise to pursue a policy of one-in/two-out
when it comes to new regulatory actions by his administration.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is long past time to stop the
runaway train of the Federal regulatory bureaucracy. I urge support for
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 115-1.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 801(a)(1)(A)(iv), title 5, United States Code,
as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, strike
``and'' at the end.
In section 801(a)(1)(A)(v), title 5, United States Code, as
proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, strike the
period at the end and insert a semicolon.
Insert after section 801(a)(1)(A)(v), title 5, United
States Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the
bill, the following:
(vi) recognizing that climate change is real and caused by
human activity, an accounting of the greenhouse gas emission
impacts associated with the rule; and
(vii) an analysis of the impacts of the rule on low-income
communities and on rural communities.
In section 804(2)(B), title 5, United States Code, as
proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, strike
``and'' at the end.
In section 804(2)(C), title 5, United States Code, as
proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, strike the
period at the end and insert a semicolon.
Insert after section 804(2)(C), title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, the
following:
``(D) an increase of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions per year or more; or
``(E) a potential increased risk to low income or rural
communities for--
``(i) cancer;
``(ii) birth defects;
``(iii) kidney disease;
``(iv) respiratory illness; or
``(v) cardiovascular illness.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, for years my Republican friends have been
trying to convince everyone that Federal agencies are scary and
unpopular. In reality, Americans support Federal rules that protect
them from injuries, diseases, and death. They always have and they
always will. The people we represent don't want those rules to go away.
They want stronger rules to protect their jobs, their pay, their
health, and their fair treatment in the workplace.
Let's remember that it takes years to finalize most rules. Before an
agency makes a rule, it considers science, costs, benefits, public
stakeholder input, and public comments. Republicans have invented
stories about surprise regulations that appear out of nowhere. These
stories sound interesting until you realize they were invented to help
their corporate friends get where they want. We know where this will
lead us. Big banks got away with robbing us and creating a major
recession because they weren't regulated strongly enough. Republicans
think the answer is making it harder to regulate them.
If this bill passes, it won't be the nameless, faceless, unelected
corporate CEOs who feel the pain. It will be the Americans from big
cities and small towns who need Federal standards to keep their
environment clean, to keep their workplace safe, and to make sure the
products they buy won't hurt their families.
My Democratic colleagues are offering amendments today that exempt
certain kinds of rules from the unrealistic burdens this bill creates.
I support these amendments.
My amendment is a little different. It is not nearly enough to save
this terrible bill, but it takes a big step in the right direction. It
acknowledges that doing nothing carries a major cost.

{time} 1600

It acknowledges human-caused climate change and requires agencies
that propose regulations to report on how a rule impacts greenhouse gas
emissions. If we require reporting a rule's costs, we should also
report its impacts to our planet and to our way of life.
It also requires an analysis of a rule's impacts on low-income and
rural communities. My Republican friends are deeply concerned about
whether new regulations make big business and Wall Street investors
happy. I think it is time we assess the impacts of regulations on the
urban poor, the rural poor, or on coastal Native American tribes
already fleeing the impacts of climate change, or the farmers in the
West and South struggling to cope with drought, flooding, and extreme
weather.

[[Page H137]]

Finally, my amendment requires congressional approval of any
regulation that would increase carbon pollution by 25,000 metric tons
or more, or could increase cancer, birth defects, kidney disease, or
cardiovascular or respiratory illness.
If House Republicans are so eager to rewrite the regulatory process,
they should be willing to cast recorded votes allowing the release of
tens of thousands of metric tons of pollution into our air. They should
publicly vote to increase the rates of these terrible diseases among
their constituents.
Passing this amendment is the very least we can do to make sure the
bill doesn't put Americans at risk of injury and death.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment renders congressional
findings on climate change and requires that agencies report to
Congress on greenhouse gas impacts associated with a rule. It also
requires agencies to report on a rule's effect on low-income and rural
communities.
Further, the amendment expands the definition of major rule to
include rules that allow increases of carbon emissions by more than
25,000 metric tons per year or that might increase the risk of certain
diseases in rural or low-income communities.
I oppose this amendment.
The REINS Act is not designed to address one or two subjects of
regulation with heightened scrutiny but not others. It is to restore
accountability to the people's elected representatives in Congress for
the largest regulatory decisions, whatever subject is involved.
Further, and consistent with that, the addition of congressional
findings in one policy area--climate change--but no other, has no place
in the REINS Act.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the REINS Act is
one sweeping piece of legislation that does not take into account
public health, does not take into account clean air, clean water, and
the effects of constituents and the American people, the environment,
or the cost attended with increased illnesses. With that sweeping
deregulation process that is being proposed by the majority, we have an
exposure on issues of public health, clean air, clean water, and the
regulations that are in place to protect the public health and the
well-being of the American people.
My amendment just requires that, if these sweeping changes are to
occur, Members of this body take the votes that would release
additional metric tons into the atmosphere that would promote and
increase the levels of disease in this country that is harmful to the
American people. It is one of disclosure and accountability if the
Members, indeed, are the ones that want to make the final decision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-1.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In paragraph (2) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert after ``means any rule'' the following: ``(other than
a special rule)''.
In paragraph (3) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert before the period at the end the following: ``, and
includes any special rule''.
Add, at the end of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, the
following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that will
result in reduced incidence of cancer, premature mortality,
asthma attacks, or respiratory disease in children.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes an important
exemption to the REINS Act to ensure that policies that protect
children from cancer, premature death, asthma attacks, or respiratory
disease are not delayed or denied.
For example, the Clean Air Act, which has been in place for over 40
years, and has improved our health and protected all Americans from
harmful toxic air pollution, such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and particle pollution, often requires updates based upon the
best science, especially when it comes to our kids.
Toxic pollutants, such as ozone, which is a major component of smog,
are linked to asthma, lung, and heart disease and result in thousands
of deaths every year and up to 1 million missed days of school. Our
kids are particularly susceptible to this type of pollution because
their lungs are still developing. On average, they take deeper breaths
and are more likely to spend long periods outdoors, placing them at
higher risk.
The American Lung Association states that inhaling smog pollution is
like getting a sunburn on your lungs, and often results in immediate
breathing trouble.
I remember very well back in the early seventies, when I was a little
girl, what the air was like in my hometown in Tampa. We had a lot of
industrial users at the port of Tampa, a lot of industrial plants. I
have seen the progress over time that the Clean Air Act has brought to
this country. We are not like other countries in the world. We are
stronger, and we are better, and we are healthier because of the Clean
Air Act.
So let's not go backwards. Let's not throw a roadblock like the REINS
Act into the mix here. But we do have to be careful because there still
are many communities in America that continue to suffer, and they are
often the underserved, economically distressed communities.
Studies have shown that working class communities often bear the
brunt of environmental pollution because the only homes they can afford
are often located near industrial sites. According to the NAACP, 78
percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of an industrial
power plant, and 71 percent of African Americans live in counties that
violate Federal air pollution standards.
In addition to that, a study by the Environmental Defense Fund found
that our Latino neighbors are three times more likely to die from
asthma, often for those same reasons.
Let's not go backwards. Because here, what the REINS Act does is it
really complicates the American system of checks and balances. Let's
not go backwards. Because it is not only our families and neighbors
that would suffer. It is also our economy that would suffer as well.
This type of regulatory scheme of mirrors and false promises would
create great uncertainty for many of our businesses. The Clean Air Act
is one example. These clean air protections in the United States have a
great track record. We have grown as a country. The economic growth has
tripled. Our economic base has more than tripled. Clean air protections
and environmental protections go hand-in-hand with economic growth.
Since 1970, we have cut harmful air pollution by 70 percent, while
our economy has grown like gang busters. I know many of you are
probably going to have your eyes on the Tampa Bay area Monday night
when we have the college football championship in Tampa with Alabama
versus Clemson. I

[[Page H138]]

want you to take a look at our clean skies, the clean air. I wish we
could all be there, but I think we are going to be back here in
Washington, D.C. But just know, it hasn't always been that way. When
you see the beautiful sunset across Tampa Bay with clear skies, that
has been because of the Clean Air Act.
But if you bring a regulatory scheme, like the REINS Act, that says
you have to come back to Congress for every single little new policy
that is based on updates and new science, that is going to complicate
everyone's lives. I worry at the outset of this new Congress, because
the first bill passed yesterday was one that short-circuited public
participation, and now this bill today appears to be a late Christmas
gift to corporate polluters who put profits over people. We are better
than that. You can prove me wrong, though, by supporting this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any
rule reducing the incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma
attacks, and respiratory diseases in children. But do not be fooled.
This amendment is not about reducing these maladies. It is about
transferring the power to decide how best to do so from elected
representatives to unaccountable bureaucrats.
For example, government could substantially reduce teenage mortality
by barring teenage drivers off the road. Of course, there would be a
substantial cost to that policy, and there are surely less burdensome
ways to achieve the same reductions in mortality. The right decision
requires a delicate balancing of interest. Agencies can provide
valuable expertise, but, when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate
decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected
officials accountable to the people.
That is the intuition behind the REINS Act and the fundamental point
that is lost on those who oppose it.
Reducing the incidence of mortality and serious disease is a goal
that all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It
merely ensures that elected representatives decide how best to achieve
that policy so that our Republic remains a government by the people as
the Constitution designed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, of course, this legislative body
has all the power to go back to policymaking after an administrative
agency makes a determination, but we are not micromanagers. We are
legislators. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Castor
amendment to protect children's health.
If you won't create an exception for children's health, I wonder, you
are not willing to really recognize the fundamental constitutional
basis of this government. It is one that relies on checks and balances
as the basis of our government.
I urge my colleagues then to also support the Castor amendment but
oppose the REINS Act in the end.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In paragraph (2) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3 of the
bill, insert after ``means any rule'' the following: ``(other
than a special rule)''.
In paragraph (3) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3 of the
bill, insert before the period at the end the following: ``,
and includes any special rule''.
Add, at the end of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3 of the
bill, the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule relating to
the protection of the public health or safety.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 26 would exempt
rules concerning public health or safety from the burdensome
requirements of this legislation.
Simply put, when a rule is necessary to protect the health and safety
of the public, it is critical that the rule be put into effect without
unnecessary delay.
If this legislation is enacted without this amendment, it will create
an untenable regulatory environment that will make it nearly impossible
for agencies to safeguard the public welfare.
This legislation could bring to a grinding halt critical rulemaking
such as rules relating to the transportation of hazardous materials by
the Department of Transportation, clean air regulations by the EPA, and
worker-protection standards by OSHA.
For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
implemented an economically significant rule that, by May 2018, all new
vehicles must have rearview cameras. This regulation will help drivers
have better visibility behind their car, greatly reducing the
likelihood of backover crashes which largely involves small children.
But under the REINS Act, this rule would require a joint
congressional resolution with an unrealistic timeline for
implementation. For every year this rule would be delayed, the Traffic
Safety Administration estimates that there would be, on average, 15,000
injuries and 267 fatalities resulting from backover crashes.
Proponents of this legislation may argue that H.R. 26 contains an
emergency exemption which allows a major rule to temporarily take
effect following an executive order stating that there is an imminent
threat to public health and safety. Even when the threat is not
imminent, the danger to the public health and welfare may be great and
the fundamental responsibility to protect the public remains.

{time} 1615

This legislation would substantially hinder the ability of agencies
to fulfill this obligation, placing Americans at greater risk for the
benefit of powerful corporate interests. In its present form, the
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and the alliance of more than 150
consumer, labor, faith, and other public interest groups predict that,
by allowing Congress to even veto uncontroversial rules that protect
public health and safety, the REINS Act ``would make the dysfunction
and obstructionism that plague our political process even worse.''
In echoing this sentiment, the American Sustainable Business Council,
which represents over 200,000 businesses, opposes H.R. 26 because it
would recklessly place the burden of proof on the taxpayers in order to
protect themselves on environmental, health, and safety issues and
would shift responsibility away from powerful corporate interests.
While my amendment will not cure all that ails this legislation--and
there is a lot--it will address one of its most glaring flaws and
preserve the ability of agencies to protect public health and safety. I
urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any
rule pertaining to health or public safety.

[[Page H139]]

Health and public safety regulations done properly serve important
goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement
of those goals; but Federal health and public safety regulations
constitute an immense part of total Federal regulation and have been
the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and
job- and wage-destroying regulations. To remove these areas of
regulation from the bill would severely weaken the bill's important
reforms to lower cumulative regulatory costs and increase the
accountability of our regulatory system and the Congress to the people,
so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made an assertion
that, in fact, nothing in this legislation does anything to frustrate
the goals of protecting health and safety; but, of course, it does. It
prevents the implementation of rules which, in fact, protect public
health and safety.
If my amendment were to pass, that statement would be true--it would
do nothing to frustrate it--but without this amendment, it prevents the
implementation of a rule that would, in fact, protect public health and
safety. It is a reasonable exemption that will ensure that we protect
the well-being and the health of our constituents. I urge all of my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conyers

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In paragraph (2) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert after ``means any rule'' the following: ``(other than
a special rule)''.
In paragraph (3) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert before the period at the end the following: ``, and
includes any special rule''.
Add, at the end of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, the
following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that would
provide for a reduction in the amount of lead in public
drinking water.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from H.R. 26,
the REINS Act, rules issued to reduce the amount of lead in public
drinking water.
The ingestion of lead, of course, causes serious harmful effects on
human health, even at low exposure levels. That is why the
Environmental Protection Agency has set the maximum contaminant level
for this toxic metal in drinking water at zero.
According to the EPA, young children, infants, and fetuses are
particularly vulnerable to lead because the physical and behavioral
effects of lead occur at lower exposure levels in children than in
adults. The Agency reports that, in children, low levels of exposure
have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous
systems, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and
the impaired formation and function of blood cells.
Take, for example, the Flint water crisis, which I have a little
experience with, which was a preventable public health disaster. While
much blame for the Flint water crisis lies with unelected officials who
prioritize saving money over saving lives, the presence of lead in
drinking water is, unfortunately, not unique to Flint. In fact, the
drinking water of, potentially, millions of Americans may be
contaminated by lead.
My amendment highlights one of the most problematic aspects of H.R.
26: that it could slow down or completely block urgent rulemakings that
protect health and safety. This is because Members simply lack the
requisite scientific or technical knowledge to independently assess the
bona fides of most regulations, which are often the product of
extensive research and analysis by agencies as well as input from
effective entities and the public.
As a result, Members would have to make their own determinations
based on their own--usually inexpert--views and limited information.
Worse yet, some may be persuaded to disapprove of a rule in response to
a wide-ranging influence exerted by outside special interests that
favor profits over safety.
My amendment simply preserves current law with respect to regulations
that are designed to prevent the contamination of drinking water by
lead. Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the
REINS Act's reforms regulations that would reduce the amount of lead in
public drinking water.
But, like other amendments, this amendment is not so much about
achieving a particular health or safety result. It is about taking the
decision on how best to do that away from elected Representatives and
handing it down to unaccountable bureaucrats. Agencies can provide
valuable expertise, but when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate
decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected
officials who are accountable to the people. This is the intuition
behind the REINS Act, and the fundamental point is lost on its
opponents.
Preventing dangerous levels of lead in our drinking water is a goal
all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely
ensures that elected Representatives decide how best to achieve that
policy so that our Republic remains a government by the people, as the
Constitution designed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
Protecting the health and safety of our citizens is one of the core
responsibilities of our government and Congress, and we trust much of
its authority to Federal agencies to implement this obligation. This
amendment simply preserves current law with respect to regulations that
are designed to prevent the contamination of drinking water by lead.
As the Obama administration has observed, in the context of a veto
threat to a substantively identical version of this bill in the last
Congress, the REINS Act would delay and, in most cases, thwart the
implementation of statutory mandates and the execution of duly enacted
laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of
the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion. Unfortunately, as
I noted in my opening statement, the REINS Act would delay and, worse
yet, possibly stop major rules from going into effect that are needed
to protect the public's health, safety, and well-being, including those
that require us to keep lead from drinking water.
Safety regulations are typically the product of a transparent and
accountable process that includes extensive investigation, analysis,
and input from

[[Page H140]]

the public and private sectors. It is no answer to say that H.R. 26
contains a limited emergency exception. That provision is insufficient.
It merely allows a major rule to temporarily take effect for 90 days
without its having congressional approval.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate what our position is, it
is about time that we in D.C.--in Congress--take our responsibility
back from unelected bureaucrats and make these decisions. We have seen,
over the past 8 years, what overburdensome regulation has done to this
country as far as crushing jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) to present her amendment in
her absence.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In paragraph (2) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3 of the
bill, insert after ``means any rule'' the following: ``(other
than a special rule)''.
In paragraph (3) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3 of the
bill, insert before the period at the end the following: ``,
and includes any special rule''.
Add, at the end of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended to read by section 3 of the
bill, the following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that pertains
to the safety of any products specifically designed to be
used or consumed by a child under the age of 2 years
(including cribs, car seats, and infant formula).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson Lee amendment
exempts from this bill's onerous requirements the congressional
approval requirement of any proposed rule that is made to ensure the
safety of products that are used or consumed by children under the age
of 2.
This amendment should pass for obvious reasons. If protecting public
health and safety means anything, it surely must include the protection
of our children. Because of the special vulnerability of young
children, any regulation affecting their health and safety must not be
delayed. Unfortunately, if this bill passes as written without this
amendment, that is exactly what will happen. The young children will be
vulnerable to products that are unsafe and that could hurt them. For
this reason, Sheila Jackson Lee has offered this amendment, which I
support.
An example is a regulation that is meant to protect a child from
death or injury from contaminated formula. Such a rule would be
impeded--or the promulgation of such a rule and the enactment of that
rule would be impeded--by this administration.
This amendment would declare that, in that case, the rule would not
apply. It would be exempted from this legislation. Toxic chemicals,
dangerous toys, or deadly falls from unsafe products could be avoided.
Therefore, this amendment would protect children under those
circumstances. Those kinds of rules need to be implemented promptly to
save lives.
For that reason, the Jackson Lee amendment deserves your support. I
hope that you can support it out of your heart.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the amendment seeks to carve out from the
REINS Act's reforms regulations intended to protect young children and
infants from harm.
Child safety is a goal all Members share, but to shield bureaucrats
who write child safety regulations from accountability to Congress is
no way to guarantee a child's safety. The only thing that would
guarantee is less careful decisionmaking and more insulation of
faceless bureaucrats from the public.
The Constitution entrusts to Congress the authority to protect
children--and all citizens--from harmful products flowing in interstate
commerce. The public should be able to trust Congress--and we should
trust ourselves--to make sure that Washington bureaucrats make the
right decisions to protect child safety when we delegate legislative
authority to regulatory agencies.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the faceless, nameless, deadly
bureaucrats out here who mean the public harm, those are our relatives.
Those are our mothers, our fathers, who work for the Federal
Government. They are the civil servants that serve us. They are not
nameless and faceless people of bad will and bad intent. They are good
people who go to work every day and try to protect us and protect our
children.
All we are asking for with this amendment is for there to be a carve-
out to protect the most vulnerable among us, our children.
This legislation is based on the faulty premise that the cost of
regulations outweigh the benefits. What is the cost of a benefit when
it comes to the health, safety, and well-being of a child?
The people who promulgate these rules mean to protect these children,
and this amendment goes to that ability of the regulators to do that.
Sometimes regulation is good.
Even though a couple of jobs might go away because of the regulation,
isn't it worth the health, safety, and well-being of our children that
a couple of jobs could not reach fruition? Everything is not a cost-
benefit analysis. Sometimes there is some humanity in the mix that we
have to consider.
I urge my colleagues to think about it one more time and be in favor
of the very reasonable Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the REINS Act doesn't prevent the
bureaucracy, the agencies, from making recommendations and suggestions
to Congress. It simply says Congress will have the last word and not a
handful of bureaucrats, and many of them don't even have experience in
these areas.
I urge my colleagues to not support this amendment but to support the
REINS Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment to H.R. 26.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In paragraph (2) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert after ``means any rule'' the following: ``(other than
a special rule)''.

[[Page H141]]

In paragraph (3) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert before the period at the end the following: ``, and
includes any special rule''.
Add, at the end of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, the
following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that pertains
to improving employment, retention, and earnings of workforce
participants, especially those participants with significant
barriers to employment.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment
to H.R. 26, which would exempt from the bill rules that improve the
employment retention and wages of workforce participants, especially
those with significant barriers to employment. Since one of the
justifications, or the main justification, for this underlying
legislation is to promote job growth from corporate titans at the
expense, by the way, of health and safety of Americans, at least, we
could exempt from the bill rules that improve the employment,
retention, and wages of workforce participants, especially those with
significant barriers to employment.
When President Obama took office in 2009, he inherited the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression. This economic quagmire was
created by misguided Republican policies that put profits ahead of
people, resulting in reckless decisions on Wall Street that cost
millions of Americans their homes and jobs. In other words, the Great
Recession was caused by the collapse of the financial markets due to an
unreliability and instability of the predatory lending market, which
had taken hold. There was so much paper out there on Wall Street that
was worthless because it was based on these homes that people couldn't
pay the notes for, and all of that was caused by deregulation, lack of
regulation.
Now we have a period with Dodd-Frank coming into play and the
financial markets improving, the protection and economic security of
American families increasing, being strengthened.
Now, at the beginning of this Congress, we get legislation to gut the
Dodd-Frank regulation and other regulations that would protect people
from excesses of the corporate community. I am just asking, in this
amendment, that we don't let it apply in the case of situations where
the bill improves employment retention or wages or workforce
participants, especially those with barriers to employment.
So, according to leading economic indicators, private-sector
businesses have created more than 15.6 million new jobs. The
unemployment rate has dropped to well below 5 percent to the lowest
point in nearly a decade, and incomes are rising faster, while the
poverty rate has dropped to the lowest point since 1968. This has all
occurred during an administration that is proenvironment, proclean
energy, and proworkplace safety.
In fact, during this time, our Nation has doubled our production of
clean energy and reduced our carbon emissions faster than any other
advanced nation. And the price of gas is down to roughly $2 a barrel,
despite all of these cumbersome and oppressive regulations by the Obama
administration that the other side complains about.
Notwithstanding this progress that has been made, there is still much
work to be done for the millions of Americans who remain out of work,
underemployed, or have not seen significant wage growth postrecession.
Congress should be working tirelessly across party lines to find
solutions to persistent unemployment and stagnant wages, such as a
public investment agenda that will increase productivity and domestic
output while turning the page on our historic underinvestment in our
Nation's roads, bridges, and educational institutions.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, this bill, the REINS Act, is not a jobs
bill. It is a legislative hacksaw to the critical public health and
safety protections that ensure our Nation's air is clean, our water is
pure, and our workplace vehicles, homes, and consumer products are
safe.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's
congressional approval procedures regulations that attempt to improve
employment, retention, and earnings, particularly for those with
significant barriers to employment.
The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives agencies
to manipulate their analysis of a major regulation's jobs and wages
impacts. Far too often, agencies will be tempted to shade the analysis
to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement.
In addition, regulations alleged to create new job prospects often do
so by destroying real, existing jobs and creating new, hoped-for jobs
associated with regulatory compliance. For example, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules have shut down existing
power plants all over the country, throwing myriads of workers out of
work. EPA and OMB attempt to justify that with claims that more new
green jobs have been created as a result.
In the end, this is just another way in which government picks the
jobs winners and the jobs losers, and there is no guarantee that all of
the new green jobs will ever actually exist.
The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It
does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose
between new jobs and old jobs.
Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It
chooses the way the Framers intended in which accountability for laws
with major economic impact rests with Congress. It rejects the way
Washington has operated for too long in which there is no
accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency
officials.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from the bill any
regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety. In other words, my
amendment would allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the NRC to
continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it
easier to protect Americans from potential nuclear disaster.
The underlying legislation, the REINS Act, would grind the gears of
rulemaking to a halt by requiring all major rules to be affirmatively
approved in advance by Congress. A regulation would be blocked from
being implemented if even one Chamber declines to pass an approval
resolution. The goal of this legislation, quite simply, is to stop the
regulatory process in its tracks, regardless of the impact on public
health and safety.
One example that highlights the risks and dangers of this legislation
is

[[Page H142]]

the subject of this amendment: Nuclear power.
The world watched in horror when an earthquake and resulting tsunami
devastated the area around Fukushima, Japan, a few years ago. That
disaster then caused its own disaster--the meltdown of three reactors
at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The meltdown led to the release
of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-kilometer exclusion zone
around the power plant, and the displacement, consequently, of 156,000
people. Just last month, seaborne radiation from Fukushima was even
detected on the West Coast of the United States.
The same year as the Fukushima meltdown, Virginia was struck by a
relatively rare but strong earthquake, felt up and down the eastern
seaboard. While the region was spared a similar disaster, the
earthquake required a nuclear power plant near the epicenter to go
offline as a precaution and served as a wake-up call that our nuclear
reactors needed additional safety protocols.
For me, this concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant,
Indian Point, which has suffered numerous malfunctions in recent years,
lies just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district, about
30 miles away from the city. Twenty million people live within a 50-
mile radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the
basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster.

{time} 1645

Indian Point also sits near two earthquake fault lines and, according
to the NRC, is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to
experience core damage because of an earthquake.
Because of the catastrophes that can result from disasters, be they
natural or manmade at nuclear power plants, prevention of meltdowns is
absolutely vital. Since Fukushima, the NRC has issued new rules
designed to upgrade power plants to withstand severe events like
earthquakes, and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown
for a significant length of time.
The NRC must retain the ability to issue new regulations to safeguard
the health and well-being of all Americans. However, this bill is
intentionally designed so that new and important regulations, including
those to prevent a nuclear power plant meltdown which could affect
millions of American, will likely never be put in place, thwarted by
either chamber of Congress.
Congress delegates authority to executive agencies because we do not
have the expertise or time to craft all technical regulations
ourselves. We should defer to the engineers and scientists at the NRC
who determine, after careful study, that a particular regulation is
critical to our safety and to the safe operation of a nuclear power
plant. This bill, however, would all too easily allow Members of
Congress to substitute their own judgment or, most likely, the wishes
of a narrow group of special interests.
This week we began a new Congress. Later this month we will have a
new administration, all controlled by Republicans. Between this bill
and the Midnight Rules bill we passed yesterday, they have chosen to
make their first order of business the dismantling and destruction of
the regulatory process, regardless of the impact on public health and
safety. This gives us a good idea of the priorities we should expect to
see in the next 2 years.
The least we can do is to try to ensure that the antiregulatory
agenda of the Republicans does not have devastating consequences such
as a nuclear meltdown. I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler
amendment to exempt nuclear safety regulations from the onerous
requirements of the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's
congressional approval procedures all regulations that pertain to
nuclear reactor safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in
nuclear safety. We want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that
pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be
made.
That is precisely why I oppose the amendment. By its terms, the
amendment shields from the REINS Act's congressional approval
procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor
safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them.
All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards,
whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS
Act. That way agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety would
know that Congress must approve their major regulations before they go
into effect.
That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best
possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. It is a
solution that everyone should support because it makes Congress more
accountable and ensures agencies will write better rules. All Americans
will be safer for it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, nuclear meltdowns are a tremendous danger
to the life and safety of millions of Americans. The Congressional
Review Act provides if the NRC makes such a regulation, Congress can
say no. That is appropriate. But to say Congress has to approve any
regulation in advance, when there may be thousands of regulations or
hundreds of regulations from different agencies, they may not get to
it. We may not have time to study it, and lives are at stake. It does
not make sense. That is why this amendment at least cuts out nuclear
meltdown regulations, nuclear safety regulations, to say Congress can
veto them if they don't agree. But the agency should be able to
promulgate it in the absence of congressional veto.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, once again, this administration has proven
how thousands of regulations have crushed jobs for the middle class
people in this country. The REINS Act does designate and allows and
wants agencies to make decisions as far as what they think the law
should be and send it to Congress.
We do have the time. We have the resources and the knowledge. That is
why we have full committees. That is why we have subcommittees and we
have experts come in and testify. Yet, we still need to get back--that
the 535 Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, make the final
decision and not a handful of unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. McNerney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 10 as the
designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In paragraph (2) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert after ``means any rule'' the following: ``(other than
a special rule)''.
In paragraph (3) of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill,
insert before the period at the end the following: ``, and
includes any special rule''.
Add, at the end of section 804, title 5, United States
Code, as proposed to be amended by section 3 of the bill, the
following:
``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule intended to
ensure the safety of natural gas or hazardous materials
pipelines or prevent, mitigate, or reduce the impact of
spills from such pipeline.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman

[[Page H143]]

from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, recent pipeline incidents have raised
serious concerns about the condition of the Nation's pipelines that
threaten the safety and health of American citizens. This amendment
will ensure that any rule intended to guarantee the safety of natural
gas or hazardous material pipelines is not considered a major rule
under this bill and would, therefore, be easier to create.
Pipeline safety is a bipartisan issue. Congress has shown that
issuing regulations related to pipelines is a priority, as evident with
the enactment of the PIPES Act last year.
However, the bill before us today, H.R. 26, contradicts this historic
precedent and would have the effect of delaying or preventing any rule
on pipeline safety from going forward. Pipeline accidents cause major
property damage, serious injuries or deaths, and harms the environment.
There are approximately 2.9 million miles of pipeline in the United
States. They travel through rural and urban areas, Republican and
Democratic districts, coastlines, inland areas. Everyone is impacted.
Quality control measures, new infrastructure, and oversight are
paramount.
Unfortunately, we have seen the devastating impact of pipeline
incidents throughout the country, including several accidents and
spills in California in recent years, such as the spill in Santa
Barbara that released more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil.
We have also seen how liquid spills can devastate the people and
economies in places like Michigan, and the irreplaceable natural
resources like the Yellowstone River in Montana, or the precious
coastline of Santa Barbara. Additionally, these explosions and spills
cause shortages and price increases that impact Americans far from the
site of the accident.
A Colonial Pipeline accident this past September in Alabama leaked
roughly 8,000 barrels of gasoline and saw prices increase by up to 31
cents a gallon in metropolitan areas in the Southeastern States.
I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we
want effective and efficient government. But, in reality, pipeline
safety regulations are already subject to duplicative and time-
consuming analyses, including a rigorous risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis required by the pipeline safety statute. These already
duplicative review requirements are among the top reasons why the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration increasingly
lags behind the congressional mandate to issue rules that protect
Americans from dangerous pipeline incidents.
In fact, this was the subject of a great deal of discussion when the
Energy and Commerce Committee marked up the pipeline safety
reauthorization bill last year. I worked with Chairman Upton and
Ranking Member Pallone to address this issue, as both sides of the
aisle agreed that the duplicative reviews currently required are
already slowing down these critical safety laws to a degree that is
frustrating and dangerous.
While we make progress in the PIPES Act, I believe we can and should
do more. The last thing we need is one more layer of bureaucracy to
further slow down implementation of these critical protections for
public health, safety, and the environment. We should work together to
prevent spills and work to minimize impacts when spills or other
incidents do occur. This includes automatic shut-off valves, leak
detection, and technologies to reduce clogging and rupture.
A vote for this amendment is a vote for the safety of the public and
the environment. It is a vote to protect the land and water that are
threatened by oil spills. It is a vote for industry that wants
certainty and clarity and doesn't want to--or benefit from--wait years
for rules to be finalized. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the
REINS Act's reform regulations that concern natural gas or hazardous
materials pipeline safety or the prevention of pipeline spills and
their adverse impacts.
We all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harm from
pipeline spills, but there is no assurance that the amendment would
guarantee the achievement of those goals. On the contrary, the
amendment would shield from congressional accountability procedures,
regulations, that actually threaten to decrease safety. They also would
shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new,
ideologically driven regulations intended to impede America's access to
new sources of cheap, clean, and plentiful natural gas.
The legislative body is the legislative body. We are trying to have
oversight over the bureaucracy. The House and the Senate is not a
bureaucracy. It is a legislative body, according to the Constitution
that represents the people of the United States. Therefore, the House
and the Senate and the President should have the last say in whether
something becomes law or not.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my opponent is right. It is the duty of
Congress to provide rules and to provide guidelines and for the
agencies to go into the details in creating these rules.
I know that the other side is opposed to the rules. They have been
touting about regulations, but poor regulations reduces jobs, too. It
creates monopolies. It creates pollution. But that is not what we are
talking about.
What we are talking about is public safety. I think what we need to
do is look at what is going to benefit the public safety and what is
going to protect people, lives, property, and the environment. That is
what this amendment does. It is simple. It exempts pipeline safety from
H.R. 26.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, what better group, such as the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or other committees here, the full committees, the
subcommittees, would be looking out and should be looking out for the
public safety and the welfare than the 535 Members of Congress?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Section 804(4) of title 5, United States Code, as proposed
to be amended to read by section 3 of the bill, is amended in
subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end.
Section 804(4) of title 5, United States Code, as proposed
to be amended to read by section 3 of the bill, is amended in
subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''.
Section 804(4) of title 5, United States Code, as proposed
to be amended to read by section 3 of the bill, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(D) any rule that pertains to workplace health and safety
made by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or
the Mine Safety and Health Administration that is necessary
to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury,
cancer or irreversible lung disease.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H144]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from
coverage under the REINS Act any rule which pertains to workplace
health and safety made by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, OSHA, or the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
MSHA, that is necessary to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic
injury, cancer or irreversible lung disease.
I am offering the amendment because we should not be creating
obstacles to the protection of life and limb. We should be concerned
about repealing such workplace rules. Actually, this concern is not
theoretical. There was a report from the chairman of the Freedom Caucus
that actually calls for the repeal of multiple safety and health rules.

{time} 1700

One OSHA rule, for example, will reduce slip, trip, and fall hazards,
which are actually a leading cause of worker deaths and lost workday
injuries. We found that this rule had not been updated since 1971, and
OSHA has calculated that over 10 years the rule will prevent nearly 300
worker deaths and more than 58,000 lost-time injuries. The net benefit,
cash benefit, of the rule is projected to be over $3 billion over 10
years.
Another rule at risk is the modernization of OSHA's beryllium
exposure limit, a 70-year-old standard that was obsolete even before it
was issued. Workers who inhaled beryllium can develop debilitating,
incurable, and frequently fatal illnesses. One known as chronic
beryllium disease also increased lung cancer.
In the 1940s, workers at the Atomic Energy Commission plants were
contracting acute beryllium poisoning. To deal with the problem, two
scientists agreed to set the exposure limit at 2 micrograms per cubic
meter of air while sitting in the back of a taxicab on their way to a
meeting. This discredited standard is often called the taxicab standard
because there was no data to support it, and there is now significant
scientific evidence that show that it has failed to protect workers.
One cost of keeping the so-called taxicab standard is estimated at
the loss of nearly 100 lives a year. So we need to make sure that this
rule is updated. It is in final stages after 18 years of development.
The finalized rule is expected to come out soon. Other rules involve
mine safety and other safety and health concerns.
The REINS Act would make it harder to protect workers' health and
safety. The bill would create more bureaucracy by requiring that any
major rule receive bicameral resolution of support within 70
legislative days prior to the rule taking effect.
This bill even provides for a reach back to consider rules issued
last spring. Under this bill, a single House of Congress could block a
rule. That raises significant constitutional concerns. By allowing a
one-House veto, the bill violates the presentment clause of the
Constitution of the United States.
My amendment ensures essential workplace safety protections are not
jeopardized by this flawed legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment carves out of the REINS
Act's congressional approval procedures any workplace safety rules
issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health Administration to reduce
traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease.
But please do not be fooled. This amendment is not about reducing
these maladies. It is about transferring the power to decide how best
to do so from elected Representatives, being House Members and
Senators, to unaccountable bureaucrats.
Arriving at the right decision requires a delicate balancing of
interests. Agencies can provide valuable expertise, but when there is a
lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike that balance
is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people. That
is the intuition behind the REINS Act and the fundamental point that is
lost on its opponents.
Preventing workplace injury is a goal all Members share. This bill
does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected
Representatives make the final call about major decisions so that our
Republic remains a government by the people as the Constitution's
Framers designed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment,
which really is a life-or-death question before the Chamber.
On February 7, 2010, a bunch of workers who were at a natural gas
plant construction site early in the morning lost their lives in a
horrific explosion because there was a natural gas blow where they
intentionally put natural gas through the pipe that was being installed
as a way of cleaning it. This is a practice which the pipe suppliers,
Siemens, GE, and others have issued serious warning is an unsafe
practice. Unfortunately, it wasn't followed that day, so six men lost
their lives. One of them was Ronnie Crabb, who was a dear friend of
mine.
It never should have happened because, again, in the private sector,
the workplace standard was there, but there was no workplace standard
in OSHA, which is now, again, trapped in the Chemical Safety Board and
the regulatory process.
This bill is just going to do nothing but, again, add additional
obstacles so that preventive measures that OSHA is really about--it is
about compliance, not retribution. There was a $16 million fine imposed
after the fact. The company, the contractor, went out of business and
paid just a fraction of it. That is not the way to protect workers'
lives. Let's allow a healthy regulatory process with private sector
input so that people like Ronnie Crabb won't lose their lives in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, again, I strongly support the Scott amendment.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 115-1.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made
in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, as proposed to be
amended by section 3 of the bill, is amended by adding at the
end the following (and conforming the table of sections
accordingly):

``Sec. 808. Review of rules currently in effect

``(a) Annual Review.--Beginning on the date that is 6
months after the date of enactment of this section and
annually thereafter for the 9 years following, each agency
shall designate not less than 10 percent of eligible rules
made by that agency for review, and shall submit a report
including each such eligible rule in the same manner as a
report under section 801(a)(1). Section 801, section 802, and
section 803 shall apply to each such rule, subject to
subsection (c) of this section. No eligible rule previously
designated may be designated again.
``(b) Sunset for Eligible Rules Not Extended.--Beginning
after the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment
of this section, if Congress has not enacted a joint
resolution of approval for that eligible rule, that eligible
rule shall not continue in effect.
``(c) Consolidation; Severability.--In applying sections
801, 802, and 803 to eligible rules under this section, the
following shall apply:
``(1) The words `take effect' shall be read as `continue in
effect'.

[[Page H145]]

``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a single joint
resolution of approval shall apply to all eligible rules in a
report designated for a year, and the matter after the
resolving clause of that joint resolution is as follows:
`That Congress approves the rules submitted by the __ for the
year __.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
``(3) It shall be in order to consider any amendment that
provides for specific conditions on which the approval of a
particular eligible rule included in the joint resolution is
contingent.
``(4) A member of either House may move that a separate
joint resolution be required for a specified rule.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `eligible
rule' means a rule that is in effect as of the date of
enactment of this section.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 22, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say that I have been
a long and strong supporter of the REINS Act. I want to compliment
Congressman Geoff Davis of Kentucky for introducing and crafting that
legislation. While he was doing that, I was drafting a bill that I
named the Sunset Act, and I looked at this from the broad scope of
this, that we have a lot of regulations that exist and have existed for
decades. Some of them are burdensome and some of them are not.
The effect of the REINS Act, which I certainly will support on a
final passage, hopefully with the King amendment adopted in it, but the
REINS Act de facto simply grandfathers in existing regulations. So it
is only prospective. It addresses the major regulations going forward,
but not those that we are stuck with, such as the Waters of the United
States, the Clean Power Plan, the overtime rule, the fiduciary rule,
the net neutrality rule, the Dodd-Frank rules, and, heaven forbid, the
ObamaCare rules if we should fail to repeal ObamaCare.
So what the King amendment does is it directs and allows the agencies
and the executive branch of government to send a minimum of 10 percent
of their regulations to the Congress each year for the duration of a
decade encompassing a full 100 percent of all the regulations in place
at the time of passage and enactment of the underlying legislation.
That gives Congress, then, authority and a vote over all of this. It
gives us an ability to amend that legislation. We can pass them all en
banc, we can amend them accordingly, or we can do what our Founding
Fathers envisioned we should do. That is the essence of this.
By the way, President-elect Trump has made some strong pledges on
dramatically reducing regulation in the United States. He doesn't have
the tools without the King amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
King amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, which
establishes an idiosyncratic process establishing an automatic sunset
of public health and safety protections. It requires that agencies
conduct an annual review of current rules to designate 10 percent of
its existing rules to be eliminated within 10 years of the bill's
enactment unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval for
eligible bills.
Now, I understand to the listening public that sounds kind of
complicated, but the bottom line is they want to do away--my friends on
the other side of the aisle--with net neutrality, which is something
that a Federal agency requires. So if you want the Internet, which we
all built and paid for through the Federal Government through our taxes
and then we turned it over to the private sector, but we still have a
public interest in the net being neutral so that all traffic flows
equally over the Web without some being slower than others according to
how much you can afford to pay. That is not fair.
So this King amendment is a part of a regulatory scheme proposed by
this legislation, the REINS Act, which is going to hurt Americans. It
is going to hurt the health, safety, and well-being of the people when
you are not able to have clean water, clean food, edible food, safe
products, clean air, and clean water. These are the things that the
REINS Act gets at. It doesn't want Americans to be healthy. It doesn't
want the Internet to be neutral. Why? Because corporate America and
Wall Street put people in office to do their bidding. That is what the
REINS Act is all about. This King amendment will make it worse.
Under current law, Federal agencies already conduct an extensive
retrospective review process of existing rules and have already saved
taxpayers billions of dollars in cost savings. Since 2011, the Obama
administration has made a durable commitment to ensuring retrospective
review of existing regulatory protections. Under Executive Orders 13563
and 13610, the administration has required that of agencies.
According to Howard Shelanski, the administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs under the Obama administration, the
Obama administration's retrospective review initiative has achieved an
estimated $37 billion in cost savings, reduced paperwork, and other
benefits for Americans over the past 5 years.
Furthermore, as the Obama administration has stated in the context of
a veto threat of a similarly draconian antiregulatory proposal in a
previous Congress, ``It is important that retrospective review efforts
not unnecessarily constrain an agency's ability to provide a timely
response to critical public health or safety issues, or constrain its
ability to implement new statutory provisions.'' That is what the King
amendment would do.
In fact, because agencies are already committed to a thorough review
process to identify and eliminate regulatory burdens, it may be
impossible for agencies to make additional cuts without severely
affecting public health and safety.
Lastly, while the majority has repeatedly noted that H.R. 26 is
forward-looking legislation, this amendment would make the bill apply
retroactively to protections and safeguards that exist at the bill's
date of enactment, a bald attempt to gut protections adopted by the
Obama administration, including net neutrality.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 427--regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2015--rep. young, r-in, and 171 cosponsors

The Administration is committed to ensuring that
regulations are smart and effective, and tailored to further
statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient
manner. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes
House passage of H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive
in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015, which would impose an
unprecedented requirement that a joint resolution of approval
be enacted by the Congress before any major rule of an
Executive Branch agency could have force or effect. This
radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers
between the Executive and Legislative branches would delay
and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory
mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws, create business
uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the
American public, and cause unnecessary confusion.
There is no justification for such an unprecedented
requirement. When a Federal agency promulgates a major rule,
it must already adhere to the particular requirements of the
statute that it is implementing and to the constraints
imposed by other Federal statutes and the Constitution.
Indeed, in many cases, the Congress has mandated that the
agency issue the particular rule. The agency must also comply
with the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). When an agency issues a
major rule, it must perform analyses of benefits and costs,
analyses that are typically required by one or more statutes
(such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act) as well
as by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
In addition, this Administration has already taken numerous
steps to reduce regulatory costs and to ensure that all major
regulations are designed to maximize net benefits to society.
Executive Order 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis,
public participation, harmonization of rulemaking across
agencies, flexible regulatory approaches, and a regulatory
retrospective review. In addition, Executive Order 13610
further institutionalizes retrospective review by requiring
agencies to report regularly on the ways in which they are
identifying and reducing the burden of existing regulations.
Finally, agency rules are subject to the jurisdiction of
Federal courts.
Moreover, for the past 19 years, the Congress itself has
had the opportunity, under the Congressional Review Act of
1996, to review on an individual basis the rules--both major
and non-major--that Federal agencies have issued.

[[Page H146]]

By replacing this well-established framework with a blanket
requirement of Congressional approval, H.R. 427 would throw
all major regulations into a months-long limbo, fostering
uncertainty and impeding business investment that is vital to
economic growth. Maintaining an appropriate allocation of
responsibility between the two branches is essential to
ensuring that the Nation's regulatory system effectively
protects public health, welfare, safety, and our environment,
while also promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation.
If the President were presented with H.R. 427, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to how much time
may be remaining for each side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has half a minute remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I fully support Congressman
King's amendment. It improves the viability of the REINS Act and makes
sure that the responsibility of legislation is in the hands of we
legislators.
Let me just ask this simple question. My good friend on the other
side says that we should let the agencies and departments regulate and
make rules. Let me ask this: How has it been going in the last 20 years
in this country?
We are $20 trillion in debt, and 20 million people are out of work or
underemployed.
Are we going to continue to let bureaucrats make these decisions that
crush jobs?
No, I don't think so. It is our responsibility in the House and it is
our responsibility in the Senate. We can hear from those individuals,
as I have repeatedly said here, in those agencies. We need to make the
final decision because just look at the track record over the last 20,
30 years of unelected bureaucrats making these rules, laws, and
regulations.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we can't blame a $20 trillion
deficit or debt on nameless, faceless bureaucrats. We can blame a lot
of that debt on the George Bush administration and the legislators who
voted for tax cuts for the wealthy that were not paid for and funded
two wars that were not paid for. That is what we can blame that $20
trillion debt on.

{time} 1715

Again, if you are in favor of net neutrality, you should oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would say that yes, we can blame a lot of debt
and deficit on a burden of regulations. We can blame it because there
is a huge cost to our executive branch of government. That cost, much
of it, the unnecessary component, all that goes against our debt and
deficit.
We saw, as Barack Obama came in as President, we had a $10 trillion
debt, which he was very critical of throughout his campaign in 2007 and
2008. Now, as he leaves office here, thankfully, in a couple of weeks,
it is a $20 trillion debt, and we can start to ratchet this thing back
down.
Looking at the Obama administration and their reports on the costs of
regulation, they come up with this number reported to the Heritage
Foundation that the annual cost of regulations to the United States,
according to the Obama administration, is $108 billion, Mr. Chairman.
So that is what we are looking at here for costs.
But I want to get at the real meat of this. Article I of the
Constitution says Congress shall make all law. Yet, we have the courts
making laws across the street, and we have regulations coming at us at
a rate of--and I expressed to the gentleman from Georgia--ten-to-one.
For every law we passed in the 114th Congress, there were at least 10
regulations that were poured over our head, and we are sitting in a
place where we don't have the tools to undo them.
Now we have a President that is ready, and he wants to undo these
regulations. If we make him march through the Administrative Procedure
Act, it is heavy, it is burdensome, and it is time-consuming. But the
King amendment gives the tools for the next President of the United
States to work with Congress to trim this regulatory burden down. And
the most important part is, it makes all of us in the House and the
Senate accountable then for all of the regulations.
The APA was allowed to dish off this legislative responsibility to
the executive branch. Congress took a pass. They ducked their
responsibility of being accountable for all legislation and found a way
to be producing less than 10 percent of the legislation that exists
even in a given year.
The King amendment says that over the period of a decade, 10 percent
a year at a minimum, Congress will have to review all the regulations.
The people from across America--we the people--will weigh in on that
regulation. And then an even better part is not only will we be
accountable here in Congress--and we should be--but when the nameless,
faceless bureaucrats are across the desk from our constituents and they
refuse to listen to our constituents, there is going to be a little bug
in the back of their ear that is going to be saying to them: You know
what? This constituent that may be losing their business over this
regulation, the next stop they make is going to be with their
Congressman. These regulations that we promulgated are going to be
subject then to being repealed by the United States Congress, as they
should be.
Support the King amendment. It puts the authority back into the hands
of Article I, we the people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Byrne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 26) to
amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major
rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________