[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H942-H953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    REDUCE EXACERBATED INFLATION NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE NATION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material on H.R. 347.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 166 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. 347.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller) 
to preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1725


                     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. 347) to require the Executive Office of the President to provide 
an inflation estimate with respect to Executive orders with a 
significant effect on the annual gross budget, and for other purposes, 
with Mrs. Miller of West Virginia 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.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. Bush) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 347, the Reduce Exacerbated 
Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation Act, or REIN IN Act.
  This legislation is timely and clearly needed. Sky-high inflation 
started sweeping across the Nation soon after the Biden administration 
came into power.
  Pushing one big-spending policy after another, President Biden has 
continued to throw fuel on the inflationary fire. That fire is rapidly 
consuming the wages of our constituents. They have had to pay higher 
and higher prices for everything from eggs to electricity, all while 
inflation pushes their real wages further and further behind.
  President Biden just does not seem to get it or admit it. At first, 
he and his administration ignored warnings his policies would spark 
inflation. Then, they tried to spin the tale that inflation was only 
temporary. Then, when it became obvious to everyone that was not the 
case, they attempted to claim that a monthly decrease in the rate of 
how fast inflation was rising meant inflation was actually falling, but 
anyone could see that made no sense.
  It is long past time the President learned and admitted more about 
how his actions have led to this harmful inflation. That is why we need 
this bill.
  The REIN IN Act ensures that costly actions the President decides to 
take solely under his own authority through executive orders will not 
go into effect until he is informed of and considers the potential 
inflationary effects.
  How does the bill require that? Simple. It requires the President to 
receive and consider inflation estimates from the Office of Management 
and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers for each executive 
order that is projected to cause an annual gross budgetary effect of at 
least $1 billion.
  The hope is the President, once he is informed of and understands the 
potential for inflationary harm from his own policy initiatives, will 
think twice about inflicting such harm. Here is hoping he does.
  In addition, the bill requires regular reports to Congress on these 
new inflation estimates that are prepared for and considered by the 
President. That way, if the President ignores the dangers and marches 
ahead with an inflation-inducing policy, Congress will be better 
equipped to take timely action to rein in an irresponsible use of 
Presidential power.
  That is our constitutional role in the legislative branch, which the 
REIN IN Act recognizes. This powerful legislative medicine will, I 
hope, lead the President to stop his inflationary onslaught on our 
economy.
  Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BUSH. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, St. Louis, House Democrats, and I rise today to strongly 
oppose H.R. 347, the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting 
the Nation Act.
  While Democrats passed numerous laws last Congress that are 
successfully reducing inflation every month, House Republicans have 
come up with nothing more than a study in response. This is 
unbelievable.
  The substance and process of this bill amount to nothing more than 
political theater to distract from and undermine the immense successes 
of congressional Democrats and the Biden administration.

                              {time}  1730

  If Republicans were serious about fighting inflation and cutting 
costs for regular, everyday people, they would have joined with 
Democrats to pass critical legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act 
to rebuild American manufacturing and lower the cost of prescription 
drugs, healthcare, energy, and other goods and services for the people 
of our country rather than pushing an extreme MAGA messaging bill that 
accomplishes nothing. Nothing. Not a thing.
  The global spike in inflation has been caused by food and fuel 
disruptions resulting from the illegal and unprovoked Russian invasion 
of Ukraine, as well as auto part supply shortages connected to the 
COVID-19 pandemic. There is no evidence that government spending or 
executive orders by President Biden have increased inflation.
  The President and congressional Democrats have taken steps to enact 
policies; not studies, not reports, but actual, tangible policies and 
dollars delivered to our communities to lower costs for regular, 
everyday people. Yet, we understand that still much more work remains.
  For over 20 years, while I was a single mother of 2, I experienced 
countless times what it was like to see costs rise faster than my 
wages. I know what it is like to have to choose between paying the 
electric bill or paying rent.
  I remember thinking to myself, who is it that is fighting for me and 
for other people in my situation?
  Lawmakers in Congress can help alleviate that pain. Lawmakers in 
Congress can prioritize enacting policies to raise wages and lower 
costs, and that is what congressional Democrats have done.
  For so many people in my community of St. Louis and around the 
country, skyrocketing rents and high utility costs are consistent 
barriers to

[[Page H943]]

keeping families safe and fed, and that is a moral and policy failure.
  We have seen how people's lives improved when the Federal Government 
stepped up to enact a moratorium on evictions or sent urgently needed 
stimulus checks to families or expanded the child tax credit or capped 
insulin at $35 a month.
  Those are the actions that saved lives. That is what we need, and we 
need more of that now. Yet, here we have a report.
  However, what my House Republican colleagues have demonstrated this 
Congress and what they are demonstrating here today with this bill is 
that they are not serious about governing. They have circumvented 
regular order to bring this hollow bill to a vote on the House floor. 
Even as people continue to suffer the consequences of inflation and 
flawed responses that exacerbate unemployment, corporations, especially 
in the energy industry, have capitalized on this crisis to raise prices 
for everyday people and for families.
  Last year, Exxon made $56 billion in profits, using inflation as a 
cover to fleece regular, everyday people just trying to get to medical 
appointments or to school.
  I oppose this bill because I am aware of what it is. It is a 
distraction from our work for our constituents. It is a waste of 
government resources, and it is a squandering of time that we should be 
using to rein in corporate greed and support those of our neighbors who 
need our help the most. I oppose this bill because it isn't a 
meaningful way to legislate. It is a political stunt.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Stefanik), the sponsor of the bill.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support my REIN IN Act.
  During the past 2 years of one party, far-left, radical, socialist 
Democrat rule in Washington led by President Joe Biden, inflation has 
skyrocketed to the highest level in my lifetime. You talk to any 
family, any small business, any farmer, any manufacturer, and they will 
say that the inflation that they are suffering from is crippling their 
businesses, crippling their family budgets.
  It is a painful tax on every American and Bidenflation continues to 
be the number one concern I hear today across my district in upstate 
New York in the North Country.
  In House Republicans' ``Commitment to America,'' our new House 
majority, the people's House majority, promised to deliver and support 
policies to ensure our economy is strong.
  In fact, one of the main reasons we have this Republican House 
majority is because the American people are smart. They know that the 
historic inflation, the highest rate of inflation in my lifetime, is a 
direct result of Joe Biden's executive orders and the trillions and 
trillions of reckless and wasteful spending from single-party Democrat 
rule.
  In fact, in Joe Biden's first year in office, he issued more 
executive orders than any President in my lifetime. This reckless, far-
left agenda cost hardworking families more than $1 trillion in taxpayer 
dollars and even more in the added cost of inflation. Whether it was 
canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office to 
pushing his out-of-touch and costly Green New Deal regulations, Joe 
Biden has fueled this inflation crisis and caused this inflation crisis 
working with the previous radical, socialist Democrat majority.
  By passing the REIN IN Act, House Republicans will demand 
transparency for the American people by revealing just how much Biden's 
executive orders are costing hardworking families and the painful 
impact that has on inflation.
  What are the Democrats so afraid of?
  This is about transparency for the American people, and it is long 
past time for Joe Biden to take into account this harmful impact of his 
failed, far-left agenda.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Today, House Republicans are laser-focused on 
fulfilling our commitment to America by reining in historic inflation, 
historic Bidenflation, on behalf of hardworking American families and 
small businesses, not just in my district, but across this great 
Nation.
  Ms. BUSH. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Madam Chair, I thank the great Representative from 
St. Louis, Ms. Bush, for yielding time.
  Madam Chair, I rise today to speak against H.R. 347, the REIN IN Act, 
and I will start my remarks today by saying how ironic it is that 
Republicans spent the entire first week of this session entangled in a 
fight in order for them to get the votes to secure a Speaker of the 
House, and the whole crux of that entanglement was rules to maintain 
regular order in the House.
  Just as we go back to Schoolhouse Rock, Republicans introduce a bill 
and it is supposed to go to committee, get a markup in that committee, 
a hearing in that committee, and a vote in that committee. If that bill 
can survive a committee vote, it comes right here to the floor of this 
House.
  We spent a whole week tied up in the beginning of this term trying to 
reassert that order. And then, today, one of the first acts that we 
have from this Committee on Oversight and Reform is to subvert that 
because perhaps they knew that this would not survive their own 
committee. So it goes straight to the floor for a vote, subverting all 
of those arguments that Republicans were making about restoring order 
to this House.
  But let's get into the substance of this bill. Ironically, if they 
had gone through regular order, they may have caught that this bill 
does nothing to rein in inflation, in part, because in their haste to 
put it together, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle committed 
an incredibly basic drafting error that makes this bill completely 
unenforceable.
  Even if we agreed on their ends, the haste and the rush to put this 
together and skip committee has created a drafting error that doesn't 
even make this bill enforceable. But even putting that error aside, my 
colleagues and I seem to have wildly different definitions of what 
actually is considered inflationary.
  While Republicans have labeled virtually any Federal spending during 
the pandemic as inflationary--while railing against the child tax 
credit that helped babies continue to be fed and diapers on their 
bottoms, that helped families stitch things together, while they railed 
against the eviction moratoriums and the Paycheck Protection Act--
Moody's Analytics found that the American Rescue Plan prevented this 
country from slipping into a double-digit recession.
  Because of the American Rescue Plan and the actual Inflation 
Reduction Act that Democrats passed last year, our country's inflation 
rate is now lower than in the U.K., Canada, and 20 other European Union 
member states.
  Yet Republicans have introduced legislation to repeal the Inflation 
Reduction Act, which would immediately raise the price of insulin along 
with other critical prescription drugs.
  Tell me how that is fighting inflation when they are proposing to 
raise the cost of prescriptions.
  Not only did Republicans vote to raise prices on prescription drugs, 
but they also voted against measures to drive down the price of 
gasoline last year.
  Last year, Democrats presented a bill to penalize companies who were 
price gouging during the middle of Putin's war on Ukraine. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against that, too.
  So which one is it?
  Republicans have controlled this body for almost 2 months and have 
not passed a single bill that would actually address inflation or cut 
costs for working families.
  But you know what Democrats did?
  In January, we capped the price of insulin at $35 so that everyday 
working families can actually get a little bit more ahead. And we have 
a lot more to go.
  But we don't even see a carefulness and a thoughtfulness from the 
other side of the aisle to even draft the language in this bill 
properly. It is not even ready for a vote, so why should we.

[[Page H944]]

  Madam Chair, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this so-called REIN IN Act.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I rise in favor of H.R. 347, the REIN IN 
Act.
  I do think that it is very rich that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are talking about regular order all of a sudden. My first 
2 years in Congress there was no such thing as regular order. In fact, 
I served on the Budget Committee and they passed two 
budget reconciliations on the House floor without it going through 
committee: completely bypassed committee.

  First one was $1.9 trillion. The next one, $700 billion. Really all 
it was, was the Green New Deal: just real quick, hurry up, get it to 
the floor. We have to spend trillions and trillions of dollars and hurt 
as many Americans as possible in the 2 years that we have left in 
power.
  With this REIN IN Act, this bill will hold Joe Biden accountable for 
this reckless spending that he has approved by my Democrat colleagues, 
who hastefully sent all of these bills to him, rushing him to spend 
trillions and trillions of American taxpayer dollars.
  His administration will now be required to publish the inflationary 
impact of executive orders before enacting them.
  Madam Chair, my constituents are struggling to deal with the 
disastrous effects of Bidenflation. Under 2 years of a one-party rule, 
Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi unleashed a record inflation crisis on the 
American people that has decimated their bank and retirement accounts, 
increased gas prices to record levels, raised utility bills, drove up 
grocery costs, and made it harder to live for the people in my 
district, Colorado's Third District, and all throughout this great 
country.
  The primary root cause of this record-breaking inflation was 
trillions of dollars of wasteful Federal spending.
  In Joe Biden's first year in office alone, he issued more executive 
orders than any other President in my lifetime, costing taxpayers more 
than $1 trillion.
  The American people said loud and clear last November that enough is 
enough. They have empowered this new majority to demand transparency by 
revealing just how much Biden's executive orders are costing American 
families and small businesses.
  Madam Chair, I thank my colleague and chairwoman of the Republican 
Conference, Elise Stefanik, for her work to hold Joe Biden and his 
administration accountable.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. BUSH. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Oversight Committee,
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the subcommittee for her leadership on refuting this legislation.
  After 2 years of rooting for economic failure and blaming President 
Biden for everything; for post-COVID global inflation, for the 
instability caused by supply chain breakdowns, and the phenomenal 
failure of Donald Trump's mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic, 
after all that, after all the whining and crying about inflation, 
Republicans finally have the chance to take center stage, right now, 
with their proposed solution to the problem of inflation.
  The world has been waiting with bated breath. Would it be what 
Richard Nixon did, wage and price controls? Would it be what Herbert 
Hoover, that Republican did, total laissez-faire, whatever happens, 
happens?
  Well, the long wait is over. The GOP has now debuted their big plan 
for dealing with inflation in America with H.R. 347, something called 
the REIN IN Act, which stands for the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation 
Negatively Impacting the Nation Act.
  It is a bill for a mandatory reporting requirement related to 
executive orders that might apply to two or three executive orders a 
year.
  You got that right: A reporting requirement related to a handful of 
executive orders every year is the GOP's response to inflation after 
barnstorming the entire country, claiming that they had some kind of 
solution.
  Now, you might think it is the most brilliant thing since the 
invention of Social Security, which they opposed, or Medicare, which 
they opposed, or you might think it is the dumbest thing since Donald 
Trump's last trillion-dollar corporate tax giveaway.
  But either away, it will have zero effect on inflation or deflation 
in the United States of America. Nothing. It is not going to have any 
effect at all.
  Now, our friends in the GOP are interested in this session of 
Congress in tortured, inscrutable, incomprehensible acronyms.
  So they can have the REIN IN Act, which they seem very connected to, 
but I want to suggest a better title that will still conform to their 
acronym. Let's call it the running on empty initiative based on no 
ideas none act. How about that?
  The legislation was hatched without any hearing, and it shows. It has 
no legislative meaning and no potential economic consequences.
  Even as reporting bills go, it is pathetically weak, as it doesn't 
even require publication of the report. They came up with a reporting 
requirement that didn't even require the report to be published.
  Look, executive orders are not the cause of inflation, and there is 
no economic research suggesting they are.
  The most conservative economists in the world will tell you that 
inflation is a complex, global phenomenon connected to prices, supply 
chains, supply and demand curves, and unemployment rate.
  Since 2020, inflation has risen worldwide, exacerbated by supply 
chain delays caused by the pandemic and then Vladimir Putin's filthy 
war of aggression in Ukraine, which some of our friends over there 
support.
  President Biden has created something like an economic miracle out of 
the chaos handed to him by Donald Trump.
  After signing his massive tax giveaway, Trump's failed State 
dysfunctional response to COVID plunged America into its most severe 
economic contraction since 1946. Someone dispute that.
  The unemployment rate rose to 14.8 percent under Donald Trump, the 
highest on record since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting 
data in 1948.
  In 2021, Biden and the Democrats got to work. We passed the American 
Rescue Plan, which fueled a strong, equitable, economic recovery with 
historic reductions in unemployment, in poverty, in economic hardship.
  Real GDP increased by 5.7 percent. The unemployment rate decreased to 
4 percent, surpassing all forecasts. Wages increased by 5 percent with 
the highest increases going to lower economic income earners.
  So Democratic policies have allowed the U.S. to absorb the shock of 
rising inflation engulfing the globe since 2020.
  That is serious economic policy, what President Biden and the 
Democrats are engaged in, and they have a silly little symbolic 
messaging bill for a couple of notations they didn't even want to 
publish originally within the process of offering executive orders.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. BUSH. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, we have created 12 million new jobs in 
America. How many million jobs do they want to erase over there in 
their desperate, sudden pursuit of inflation?
  They raised the debt limit three times under Donald Trump. Now they 
talk about the debt limit all the time. They raised it three times, and 
they contributed under Donald Trump 25 percent of all the debt in the 
United States from George Washington to Joe Biden--25 percent of the 
debt under one President, Donald Trump.
  They did that, and now they dare come talk to us about inflation, and 
the bill that they advance is one to have some people pass some more 
paperwork around.
  Come on. Give me a break. Give us something better than the running 
on empty initiative with no new ideas at all.
  We recommend a ``no'' vote. What real economic action requires is 
precisely what President Biden is already doing.

[[Page H945]]

  

  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared 
to close.
  Ms. BUSH. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, over the past 2 years, through the Inflation Reduction 
Act, the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, and other successes, Democrats and President Biden have made 
historic investments in public transit, renewable energy, healthcare, 
and economic stability.

  We have created jobs. We have advanced justice. We have advanced 
equity. We have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and we have slowed 
down inflation.
  We put hundreds of dollars in people's pockets. We capped the price 
of insulin. We invested in people.
  As a result, when adjusted for inflation, wages have risen for so 
many families over the last 7 months, and unemployment remains at its 
lowest level since 1969.
  However, we need to do so much more. Many of our neighbors, 
particularly those with the greatest need, are suffering from the 
consequences of high costs across the board.
  I am glad House Democrats controlled the House during the pandemic. 
This bill makes a mockery of people living in poverty who need 
meaningful relief.
  The Republicans' big idea, the big plan that we have been told about 
and waiting on is to write a flawed bill that mandates--guess what--
more paperwork. Give me a break, as my ranking member just said.
  I know what it is like to be at risk of eviction. I know what it is 
like to be hungry. I know what it is like to be cold, so cold that you 
don't know if you will survive the nights.
  Never one time when I was living out of my car with my two babies did 
I ask for a report from Congress for help. I needed diapers. I needed 
food. You can't eat a report.
  If this bill was to move forward, no one will be saying, I am so glad 
I used this report to pay the rent. Let me take shelter with this 
report because Congress did their job.
  Let's take real care, real actual care of the people. I oppose this 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This legislation asks every Member to answer two simple questions.
  First, do you want the President to know what the inflationary 
dangers are before he takes executive actions?
  Second, when the President knows about the economic dangers of a 
policy and inflicts them on our constituents anyway, do you want to be 
better informed so that Congress can take the necessary action to rein 
in the executive branch?
  The answers to both of those questions ought to be yes. This bill 
makes sure both the President and the Congress have the necessary 
information so we can discharge our duties more efficiently and 
responsibly.
  Our constituents back home, who have been suffering from the 
inflationary effects of Washington's poorly thought-out policies, 
deserve nothing less.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  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.
  The bill is considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 347

       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 ``Reduce Exacerbated Inflation 
     Negatively Impacting the Nation Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXECUTIVE ORDER MANDATED INFLATION ACCOUNTABILITY AND 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Mandatory Inflation Forecasting.--For any major 
     Executive order, the President, acting through the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget and the Chair of the 
     Council of Economic Advisers, shall prepare and consider a 
     statement estimating the inflationary effects of the 
     Executive order, including whether the Executive order is 
     determined to have no significant impact on inflation, is 
     determined to have quantifiable inflationary impact on the 
     consumer price index, or is determined likely to have a 
     significant impact on inflation but the amount cannot be 
     determined at the time the estimate is prepared.
       (b) Agency Assistance.--The head of each agency shall 
     provide to the President, acting through the Director and the 
     Chair, such information and assistance as the President, 
     acting through the Director and the Chair, may reasonably 
     request to assist the President, acting through the Director 
     and the Chair, in carrying out this section.
       (c) Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     President, acting through the Director and the Chair, shall 
     submit to the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives a report containing each statement 
     prepared and considered under subsection (a) during the year.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Major executive order.--The term ``major Executive 
     order'' means any Executive order that would be projected (in 
     a conventional cost estimate) to cause an annual gross 
     budgetary effect of at least $1,000,000,000, but does not 
     include any such measure that--
       (A) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the 
     request of any State or local government or any official of a 
     State or local government; or
       (B) is necessary for the national security or the 
     ratification or implementation of international treaty 
     obligations.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States, and each 
     federally recognized Indian Tribe.

  The CHAIR: No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House report 118-4. Each such amendment may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, by the Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as 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. Bost

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 118-4.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 14, after the period insert the following: 
     ``To the greatest extent practicable, any estimate of the 
     inflationary impact of any major Executive order under this 
     section shall take into account the spending patterns of 
     military personnel and of residents of non-metropolitan 
     areas, including rural areas and farm households.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Bost) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 
Consumer Price Index is defined as ``the average change over time in 
the prices paid by urban customers.''
  Now, let me say that again: Urban customers. What about the 46 
million Americans who live in rural areas or the 2.6 million workers 
that are working on a farm or the 1.3 million in the military? They are 
crushed by inflation, as well.
  Illinois' 12th District is one of the largest agricultural districts 
in the region. It is also home of Scott Air Force Base. But all too 
often, these hardworking, God-fearing patriots are ignored by the D.C. 
swamp.
  The President can't ignore their needs simply because they don't live 
in liberal cities like New York, L.A., and Chicago, so my amendment is 
simple.
  Since the spending patterns of military personnel, individuals in 
rural areas, and farm households are not included in the CPI, they must 
be taken into account separately in this report.
  These are the individuals who produce the food on our kitchen tables, 
the ones who raise their right hand and swear to defend our Nation. 
They deserve to be represented, to be heard. My amendment ensures that 
they are.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, actually, I have a question because it 
strikes me

[[Page H946]]

as a very sincerely and decently motivated amendment to a flawed bill.
  But is there a reason to think that any of the current economic 
analyses of inflation and the current indicators that we use don't take 
into account the various factors that the gentleman specifies?
  I yield to the gentleman for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, yes, because the definition itself describes 
that it is only urban and, therefore, not considering the issues, 
because I can guarantee you that the price and the situation that 
occurs in people's lives and the cost of living is completely different 
from one area to the other.
  We are just saying that this should be taken into consideration, as 
well.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time.
  That makes great sense to me, and I am tempted to support the 
amendment. If the gentleman is correct, that points to a larger 
problem.
  Is the gentleman telling us that the inflation rate today that is 
published by our government does not incorporate spending patterns in 
rural areas, for example?

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BOST. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for 
the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BOST. It is my understanding, by the definition, that would be 
the case, that everyone should be considered. By this definition, it is 
not everyone that is considered, only urban.
  Mr. RASKIN. I am sorry. By which definition?
  Mr. BOST. By the definition that the Consumer Price Index is defined 
as the average change, over time, in prices paid by urban customers, 
not by all customers, which would include the people I was talking 
about, urban only.
  Mr. RASKIN. Reclaiming my time, I don't know what the reason for that 
is, and thank you for educating me. I wasn't aware of it.
  I assume they are saying the inflation rate is higher in urban areas 
than it is in rural areas, which is, presumably, why they peg it to 
that. That might bring the inflation rate down.
  Would the gentleman just give me a sense of how taking it into 
account might affect what is today the general inflation rate? Let's 
assume it is inflated because it is focused on the urban areas where 
the cost of living is higher. Would it reduce the overall inflation 
rate?
  Mr. BOST. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for 
the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BOST. Let me explain it this way. The answer is, I don't know, 
nor do you, nor does anyone because we only use the urban. Therefore, 
the best thing we could do is include all.
  Mr. RASKIN. Reclaiming my time, this very constructive colloquy, I 
think, underscores the importance of actually having hearings in 
Congress. This is legislation that sprung out of someone's head 
somewhere and then appeared on the House floor without actually having 
a hearing where we could examine it.
  The gentleman raises a profound point that might lead us to question 
inflation statistics generally. I just don't know. At this point, we 
are all guessing because we haven't had a hearing, and we don't know 
the facts of it.
  Unfortunately, we are going to be sending people, including me, to 
the floor to vote on this amendment without really having any 
information about the background.
  Obviously, we want to make sure that military personnel, farm 
households, and residents of rural areas are included, forcefully, if 
they are excluded now, even if that means bringing the inflation rate 
down, something I imagine President Biden would quite enjoy.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's 
amendment, which makes an important improvement to the bill.
  The sky-high inflation America is experiencing under the Biden 
administration hits hard military families, rural areas, and farm 
households. Too often, these vital groups of our constituents get short 
shrift in Washington's policy considerations.
  My friend's amendment makes sure that will not happen when it comes 
to the inflation impact assessments this bill requires.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I appreciate the input from everybody 
involved, and I ask for positive consideration.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam 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 Illinois will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Comer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 118-4.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 25, after ``House of Representatives'', insert 
     ``, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Oversight and 
     Accountability of the House of Representatives''.
       Page 3, line 10, after ``budgetary'', insert ``or 
     economic''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is a manager's amendment to enhance in two ways this 
already very good bill.
  First, my amendment expands the bill's coverage. Instead of just 
covering executive orders with more than $1 billion in annual effect on 
the Federal budget, it would also cover executive orders with overall 
economic impact on our Nation's economy of $1 billion or more.
  We should have inflation-impact assessments for executive orders with 
such significant economic effects. One such order, for example, would 
surely be Executive Order No. 13992, by which President Biden revoked 
President Trump's major regulatory reform orders.
  As we all know, President Trump's orders contributed massively to the 
booming economy America had during the last administration. Beyond 
doubt, their revocation inflicted more than $1 billion of annual harm 
on the economy. Their repeal also makes it harder for American 
companies to produce a host of goods and services. That will raise 
inflation by making those goods and services scarcer and more costly.
  Other good examples are Executive Orders Nos. 13990 and 14008. These 
are whole-of-government executive orders by President Biden on climate 
policy. These orders canceled the Keystone pipeline and launched a host 
of high-cost regulatory actions, particularly affecting energy.
  Those executive orders surely contributed to the sky-high energy 
inflation Americans have experienced under President Biden.
  The second way my amendment improves the bill is by requiring the 
White House's inflation-impact assessments to be reported not just to 
the House and Senate Budget Committees but also to the House Oversight 
and Accountability Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee. These committees of cross-cutting 
jurisdiction should receive these annual reports.
  Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H947]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, the first thing I want to note about this 
amendment is that it now expands the definition of a major executive 
order to include those projected to cause an annual gross budgetary or 
economic effect of at least $1 billion, which includes those orders 
that would have a positive economic effect of $1 billion or more, 
thereby just adding a lot more paperwork, a lot more unnecessary 
bureaucratic entanglement.
  The distinguished chair of the Oversight and Accountability 
Committee, I think, mentioned in passing the Biden administration's 
attempt to roll back some of the radical deregulatory program of the 
Trump administration, which undermined regulations favoring automobile 
safety, train safety, water safety, land safety.
  Again, we have what appears to be another clever talking point by the 
GOP, and the whole country is now up in arms over what took place in 
East Palestine, Ohio. We see precisely what the human effects and 
consequences are of their radical, pro-corporate deregulatory agenda, 
dismantling the rules and regulations that protect public safety and 
public welfare.
  That is really what is going on over there. It is not about having a 
couple of little analyses stuck onto an executive order every 4, 5, or 
6 months. We know exactly what the real economic program is.
  This bill is a camouflage, just like this amendment is, and I urge 
the body to oppose it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 118-4.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 24, after ``shall'', insert the following: 
     ``publish on the public website of the Office of Management 
     and Budget and''

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I rise in favor of Amendment No. 3, which 
will require inflation-impact assessments to be published on the Office 
of Management and Budget's website, not just reported to Congress.
  This simple, straightforward amendment will ensure that the American 
people, who bear the brunt of inflation's impacts, will be better 
informed of the President's inflation-inducing actions.
  Without my amendment, the real-life consequences of Joe Biden's 
spending spree in the White House will not be seen by those impacted 
most. This will provide transparency for the administration to answer 
to the American people.
  Thanks to Joe Biden's reckless spending agenda, America will spend 
$10 trillion more over the next 10 years than we were estimated to 
spend. While the Federal Government continues to spend trillions of 
dollars it doesn't have, inflation has hit a 40-year high and our 
Nation is now mired in a recession.
  Instead of addressing these major economic concerns head-on, the 
Democrat solution to inflation is to keep on spending.
  The GOP majority has been empowered to hold the Biden administration 
accountable and demand transparency by revealing just how much Biden's 
executive orders are costing American families and small businesses.
  This excessive spending has real consequences. American families will 
pay an $8,581 inflation tax over the next year.
  Currently, 20 million Americans cannot pay their electric bill. We 
have seen a 4.3 percent decline in real wages since Biden took office. 
Americans have lost more than $2 trillion in retirement savings. Gas is 
nearly $4 a gallon again.
  Americans are paying more for everything because of leftwing 
extremist policies.
  House Republicans are working to reduce inflation by fundamentally 
changing the way we vote on appropriations bills and putting an end to 
reckless spending omnibus packages passed on Christmas Eve, without any 
time to actually read the bills, multi-thousand-page bills spending 
trillions of dollars, about 24 hours or less to read it.
  We are working to cut wasteful spending, get to the bottom of 
fraudulent payments made by the Federal Government, support American 
energy production, and oppose tax increases proposed by the Democrats. 
Economic strength and job growth result from policies that unshackle 
job creators, allow American ingenuity, and provide certainty.
  Madam Chair, I again thank my colleague, the chairwoman of the 
Republican Conference, Elise Stefanik, for her leadership on this 
issue.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and vote in 
favor of the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I want to just clear up a couple of things.
  First, I heard the very distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado 
mention job creators. I assume she was responding to President Biden 
since 12 million new jobs have been created under President Biden, 
whereas millions of jobs were lost under the prior President, who may 
be a favorite of the gentlewoman's.
  I also wanted to make just a brief semantic point because the 
gentlewoman was making a grammatical error that I heard some of her 
colleagues make before. I believe she referred to a ``Democrat 
solution.'' I heard another Member talk about a ``Democrat Member'' and 
a ``Democrat plan.''
  I just wanted to educate our distinguished colleagues that 
``Democrat'' is the noun. When you use it as an adjective, you say the 
``Democratic Member,'' or the ``Democratic solution,'' or the 
``Democratic plan.''
  I assume it is a good faith grammatical error the first few times, 
but after people are corrected several times and they continue to say 
it, it seems like it is an act of incivility, as if every time we 
mentioned the other party it just came out with a kind of political 
speech impediment like, ``Oh, the banana Republican Party,'' as if we 
were to say that every time we mentioned the ``banana Republican 
Member,'' or the ``banana Republican plan,'' or the ``banana Republican 
Conference,'' but we wouldn't do that.

                              {time}  1815

  So out of pure political courtesy, when it is an adjective, refer to 
the ``Democratic Congresswoman'' or the ``Democratic Member.''
  Having said that, I would like to say that I favor the Boebert 
amendment. I think it is really the Raskin amendment because none of 
them apparently caught the fact that their reporting requirement wasn't 
to be published until I told them. I actually read the bill, and I said 
there is no publication of it. So this amendment follows through on the 
fact that I pointed out to them that their bill didn't even call for 
publication of the inflation information which they thought was so 
essential.
  Madam Chair, I am afraid I am going to have to support the Boebert 
amendment, because I think I am the genesis of it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I do want to take a few seconds to 
respond. That was great. We are addressed as MAGA extremists, extreme 
MAGA Republicans. I will just make a clarification point. It is ultra 
MAGA. That is what we prefer.
  But I will say to the ranking member, I am very happy that they have 
moved on from pronouns to adjectives. When they start acting 
democratic, I will be sure to call them the Democratic Party.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The REIN IN Act already ensures both the President and Congress 
receive the inflation impact assessment

[[Page H948]]

the bill requires. My colleague's amendment guarantees another vital 
recipient gets these assessments, as well: that recipient is the 
American people, who are bearing the brunt of Bidenflation.
  Once the White House assessments are posted on the Office of 
Management and Budget's website plain as day, as my friend's amendment 
requires, the American people will be able to know and judge better for 
themselves how the President is impacting their daily lives.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cloud

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-4.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 14, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Any statement prepared under this subsection shall 
     incorporate the inflationary impact of the debt servicing 
     costs associated with the applicable major Executive 
     order.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cloud) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The intent of the REIN IN Act is to ensure that the executive branch 
is taking into account inflation in our country before they issue new 
regulations.
  Our country has seen rising inflation over the last 2 years, and 
inflation is affecting all of us. It is affecting our families, 
especially those with lower incomes who don't have as much of a cushion 
to deal with what we are seeing as they face increasing costs, 
especially in gas and in groceries.
  But as we consider the cost of inflation, we should also include the 
cost of debt servicing in what we are doing. Too often, we, as a 
government, don't do the same thing that we expect our families to do. 
When someone goes to purchase a car, for example, or a house, they have 
to include the cost of interest that they are going to pay on those 
kinds of things. We regularly ignore that as if it wasn't an important 
part of what we spend when, in fact, it is about $600 billion of 
spending annually.
  This is why I offered my amendment to the REIN IN Act. My amendment 
would amend the bill to direct the Office of Management and Budget and 
the Council of Economic Advisers to incorporate the inflationary impact 
of debt servicing costs into the reports that they create.
  Rising interest rates have the same effect on costs of spending on 
the national result, as well. We see rising interest rates have the 
same meaning for our country as the families that we encounter. But in 
order to accurately account for what we are spending, we cannot ignore 
the cost of debt servicing or the real cost that will be accrued with 
new spending.
  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a report 
today that estimated net interest will total $10.5 trillion over the 
next decade. As lawmakers, we have a duty to be honest about the 
effects of our actions, and this amendment will keep us honest about 
the true effects of our spending.
  Madam Chair, I encourage support of my amendment and the underlying 
legislation as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I would ask if the gentleman would be 
willing to yield for a couple of questions?
  Again, there was no hearing in committee, so I don't understand this. 
This might be a great idea, but I would like to figure it out.
  It requires that any inflationary estimates prepared incorporate the 
inflationary impact of debt servicing costs, which seems perfectly 
logical to me.
  But is there a reason to think that the current inflation rate, as 
defined by the U.S. Government, does not incorporate the inflationary 
impact of debt servicing costs?
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Chair, yes, it has been regular practice with CBO. I 
have been working to get this done for the CBO as well since I got here 
in Congress.
  It is the common practice among all of the entities that we look to 
for wisdom and advice and guidance on budgeting and spending, that the 
cost of debt servicing is not counted into their projections.
  Mr. RASKIN. So that is true across the board in terms of all of the 
economic indicators that we read about, whether it is the OMB or the--
--
  Mr. CLOUD. The information that we get to take into account, like 
when we are evaluating a bill and what we think the 10-year projected 
cost is, yes, typically it does not include the debt servicing cost.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I reclaim my time and thank the gentleman 
for his kind answers.
  This really is why we have hearings in Congress, because it feels 
like we are just posting a lot of graffiti on a wall here.
  I don't know how the inflation rate is calculated. I don't know 
whether the import of this amendment would be to double count debt 
servicing costs because I don't know which government agencies actually 
incorporate debt servicing costs and which don't.
  One thing I do know is that if the gentleman has the greatest 
amendment of the year, it is still basically irrelevant because it does 
nothing. In other words, it is not going to do anything to bring down 
anybody's debt servicing costs, which I agree are huge, unlike, for 
example, what the Biden administration has done in terms of student 
debt by acting dramatically to bring it down--even though there are 
people from across the aisle who are in court today, I believe, trying 
to get that thrown out and trying to bring everybody's student loan 
debt back up--that is real economic action.
  In any event, what this is about is pure symbolism. In other words, 
they are asking for a reporting bill that will only apply if there is a 
$1 billion plus impact, and the good gentleman comes forward to say: 
Make sure, Mr. President, when you are doing your calculations, that 
you include debt servicing costs.
  I don't know. You could take it or leave it. It doesn't do anything 
for people who are staggering under debt. The way that the Biden 
administration is trying to act, for example, is to deal with the 
problem of student debt or the way that we have acted to try to help 
people who are suffering under mortgage debt, that is real economic 
action.
  I am just going to have to consider it carefully, given the 
information we have. But I will end with a plea for the good chairman 
of the Oversight Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky: 
We have to have hearings on these bills, so we know what we are talking 
about, because I feel like we are dancing in the dark here.

  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I once again point out that we spend approximately $600 billion a 
year in interest payments, yet we do not count the cost of what the 
debt servicing will cost in anything we do.
  Now, that is, in short order, expected to eclipse our military 
spending, which is our number one constitutional priority for our 
Federal spending. Whatever we want to do up here, if we do not begin to 
count the real cost of what we are doing, we will be off. Right now, we 
are having to deal with a debt ceiling issue, because the previous 
Congress decided to spend without considering the cost of what it was 
going to take and to push us toward the limit.
  We are cognizant of the fact that we are spending. We are going to 
monitor our spending in a way that we leave a

[[Page H949]]

better country for our kids and our grandkids, and this is part of 
making sure that we are actually counting the real cost of what we are 
doing as we take each step.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Comer), the distinguished chair of the Oversight Committee.
  Mr. COMER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Often when inflation is considered, people fail to consider one of 
its important effects. That effect is on how much more it costs 
taxpayers to pay interest on our Federal debt. Those interest payments 
are high, and they spike higher when interest rates rise.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Federal Government 
would pay $400 billion in interest on the Federal debt during fiscal 
year 2022. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected at 
the time that for every 1 percent increase in interest rates, those 
annual payments would rise by $38 billion. Remember, that was for 
fiscal year 2022, when the Federal debt and interest rates were lower 
than they are now.
  My colleague's amendment makes sure the impact on the Federal debt 
service costs will not be overlooked in the inflation impact 
assessments the bill requires.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I just repeat my puzzlement from before.
  Perhaps if Mr. Cloud would yield for another question.
  What is the inflationary impact of debt servicing costs? Have there 
been any economic studies on that?
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman for a colloquy.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Chair, what we are trying to do is make sure that 
the debt servicing cost is included into these studies we are getting.
  I have a bill, for example, to eventually do it with the 
Congressional Budget Office. We would like to see that, as well. This 
would make sure that we are getting this done in the REIN IN Act with 
the OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers.
  It is common sense to me. This should be bipartisan. We should really 
be counting the costs of what we are actually spending. This isn't 
really meant to be a controversial bill, except for those who don't 
really want to know what we are actually spending.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I reclaim my time.
  I think the gentleman raises a very interesting point. I would love 
to know the answer as to whether or not it is actually incorporated 
today in what the inflationary or deflationary effects are of debt 
servicing costs. Obviously, this bill and this amendment would not have 
any impact on what those debt servicing costs are, but I don't see much 
of a problem of adding this language to the hortatory nature of the 
legislation.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLOUD. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just add, it may not change what we are doing, but it would 
change the knowledge of what we are doing here in Congress. The fact 
that we continue to spend money without even knowing how much money we 
are spending, I think, is a problem and certainly not the due diligence 
that we should have as Members of Congress, being diligent with the 
public trust that we have been given.
  So having the real cost estimates before us is going to be very 
valuable as we go forward to understand exactly what we are doing as we 
begin to evaluate legislation and for the administration when they are 
dealing with regulations they are proposing.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I will just end on this one with this 
thought.
  The majority comes forward with a plan to say we want to know an 
estimated inflationary impact of an executive order, and then we have a 
series of Christmas tree amendments saying, make sure you include the 
cost to rural areas; make sure you include the cost of debt servicing. 
I would like to know the overall costs.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cloud).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1830

  The CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be 
offered.


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 118-4.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 10, strike ``inflation,'' and insert 
     ``inflation or''.
       Page 2, beginning on line 11, strike the comma and all that 
     follows through ``prepared'' on line 14.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, for those of us who have had the 
privilege of serving in the United States Congress for a period of 
time, going through any number of Speakers and majorities, what we are 
doing this evening in the midst of the needs of the American people is 
deja vu.
  Let me say that the Congressional Review Act process, which we 
debated just a few hours ago, would have added a 60-day review period 
on crucial, lifesaving executive orders that would have been necessary 
or have been necessary to save lives and to improve the quality of life 
of the American people--in this instance, rulemaking.
  It is obstructionist. It was passed, the Congressional Review Act--
obstruction--some 60-day review period, adding a Senate vote, a House 
vote, a veto, and coming back again when American lives are in jeopardy 
for healthcare, for the environment, for labor laws, any number of 
things, for criminal justice reform, any number of rules that would 
create a better pathway for Americans.
  Now, we come with the REIN IN Act. I am positive that we did the REIN 
IN Act some years ago. It sounds very familiar. This one deals with 
allegedly providing some pathway for dealing effectively with 
inflation.
  I would hope my colleagues would be as interested in raising the debt 
ceiling, which will stop the bleeding of the American people and 
busting their wallets open because we have refused to pay our bills.
  This seems to ignore the work that President Biden has done to cut 
everyday costs for working families, bring global supply chains back 
in, alleviating debt for students and veterans, and fighting climate 
change.
  This part of their larger plan to cut Medicare, Social Security, and 
other crucial programs are in this bill.
  Eliminating the language that we did with my amendment further helps 
to ensure that improper and ambiguous congressional interference in 
executive orders as sought through this legislation is appropriately 
curtailed.
  The executive orders that are well vetted by the President of the 
United States that have helped populations that have been in trouble, 
that have brought about a reckoning of police reform, these executive 
orders would not be interfered with under the pretense of trying to 
suggest an inflationary impact.
  Why not applaud the work that President Biden has done, as I said, 
with alleviating the debt of students and veterans, of which there are 
those now fighting this in the Supreme Court, the work he has done on 
climate change, and the work we have all done--Democrats and the 
President--to preserve Medicare, Social Security, and other critical 
programs?
  I ask my colleagues to support Jackson Lee amendment No. 6 to stop 
the interference that has no benefit and impact on any inflationary 
uptick. What we need to do is work together to provide a budget, to be 
able to overview the budget, and to be able to come together to raise 
the debt ceiling to pay America's bills.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 6, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H950]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, the amendment strikes the bill's 
requirement for an inflation impact assessment when an executive order 
will have a significant impact on inflation, but the impact cannot yet 
be precisely quantified.
  That is exactly the wrong approach to take. If the White House can 
determine an executive order will indeed have a significant impact on 
inflation, that is what is important. The President should know about 
that before he acts.
  It would be unwise and dangerous to happily let the President proceed 
in the dark about an order's inflationary impacts just because they 
cannot be calculated with perfect precision.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, this is deja vu. I know the intent of 
this legislation, the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting 
the Nation Act.
  What I would say is my amendment clearly wants to take away 
destructive interference in the work that the executive has to do 
through vetting their executive orders by not insisting on extra 
baggage that would not in any way provide any relief to inflation.
  What will provide relief to inflation would be to ensure that the 
debt of students is reduced, that veterans are protected, that Medicare 
and Social Security are protected, and that the debt ceiling is raised.
  My amendment, by eliminating the language, further helps to ensure 
that improper and ambiguous congressional interference with executive 
orders, as sought through this legislation, is appropriately curtailed 
because the more you delay constructive executive orders to help the 
American people, the more you undermine the relief of the American 
people and help to bring down inflation.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 347, the Reduce 
Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation or REIN In Act, 
an unnecessary, ambiguous and improper reporting bill that undermines 
the important steps President Biden has taken to cut everyday costs for 
working families.
  H.R. 347 would require the Administration to publish the inflationary 
impact of executive orders that are projected to have an annual 
budgetary effect of at least $1 billion.
  While I stand in strong opposition to this measure, I have offered 
five amendments, four of which were made in order, to H.R. 347 in order 
to help address the some of ambiguity and unnecessary oversight of 
presidential executive orders this bill unfortunately puts forth.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #5 restricts the bill to only cover Executive 
Orders as listed in Sec. 2 (d)(2)(A) (emergency assistance) and (B) 
(national security or treaties).
  The Jackson Lee Amendment #5 would change the legislation to make 
only those executive orders that qualify as emergency assistance and 
national security or treaties to go through mandatory inflation 
forecasting, instead of requiring that all executive orders outside of 
the scope of emergency assistance or national security or treaties go 
through mandatory inflation forecasts.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #6 inserts into Sec. 2 (a) line 10 ``or'' after 
``inflations'' and Strikes Sec. (a) lines 11-14, to clarify and make 
consistent with economic policy on inflationary impacts and effects.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #6 would eliminate some of the ambiguous and 
extraneous language in this bill.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #7 adds at the end of section 2(d) the 
definition to ``significant impact'' in Sec. 2 (a), which states as 
follows: ``The term ``significant impact on inflation'' means an 
Executive order was estimated to increase or decrease Consumer Price 
Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course of a 
year.''
  Jackson Lee Amendment #7 would define significant impact in regard to 
the increase or decrease of the Consumer Price Index.
  It is important that Significant Impact to the Consumer Price Index 
of inflation is specified to eliminate ambiguity in the application of 
the term ``significant''.
  In keeping in line with nationally recognized standards for what is 
deemed to be ``significant'' in the context of inflation, many 
economists agree that an increase or decrease in the Consumer Price 
Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course of a 
year is considered to be a significant impact on the Consumer Price 
Index over a year.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #8 adds at the end of section 2(d), (4) ``The 
term ``quantifiable inflationary impact'' means an Executive order was 
estimated to increase or decrease Consumer Price Index inflation by at 
least 1% percentage point over the course of a year.''
  The Jackson Lee Amendment #8 would specify the meaning and 
application of what quantifiable inflationary impact is to eliminate 
ambiguity and uncertainty in its contextual use for the purpose of this 
legislation.
  And so again, keeping in line with nationally recognized standards, 
many economists agree that a ``quantifiable inflationary impact'' is 
deemed to occur when there is an increase or decrease in the Consumer 
Price Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course 
of a year.
  While H.R. 347 is a clear overreach and would impose improper and 
onerous restrictions upon the Executive Branch, the Jackson Lee 
Amendments will be offered to this body as mere attempted to help 
ensure that the inappropriate limitations as proscribed by this 
legislation are curtailed in its effort to limit the authority of the 
Executive orders.
  The ability of the Executive Branch to carry out its Executive Orders 
without improper or overbearing congressional restrictions on such 
actions is of utmost importance to our Democracy and the continued 
growth and betterment of our country.
  And while executive orders are not expressly addressed in the U.S. 
Constitution and no statute grants the President the general power to 
issue them, executive orders have always been accepted as an inherent 
and necessary aspect of presidential power and function of our 
government since its inception.
  The legislation, however, oversteps the boundaries of our nation's 
governmental functions by attempting to override critically important 
and vital actions our democracy needs and has historically accepted as 
an inherent facet of separate functioning branches of our government.
  Imposing such broad and ambiguous oversight of executive orders as 
proposed by H.R. 347 would only serve as an unnecessary and improper 
restriction on the powers of the Presidential executive orders, while 
also perpetuating a waste of government resources and further hindering 
American economic growth.
  As such, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this onerous and 
unnecessary bill.
  Madam Chair, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


               amendment no. 7 offered by ms. jackson lee

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 118-4.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 2(d), add the following:
       (4) Significant impact.--The term ``significant impact'' 
     means, with respect to a major Executive order, that such 
     order is estimated to increase or decrease Consumer Price 
     Index inflation by at least 1 percentage point over the 
     course of a year.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, we cannot run the government by 
ambiguity, confusion, lack of clarity, and just throwing language down 
on the floor and expecting all the pieces of government to work 
together.
  I question whether this legislation and the legislation dealing with 
the Congressional Review Act is ever going to be passed in the United 
States Senate. I question that. It would have been nice to have 
hearings and work together.
  This amendment tries to bring clarity. My amendment tries to define 
the term ``significant impact.'' The term ``significant impact on 
inflation'' means an executive order was estimated to increase or 
decrease Consumer Price Index inflation by at least

[[Page H951]]

1 percentage point over the course of a year. This amendment does 
clarify that the meaning of ``significant impact on inflation'' is 
quantifiable in any effort to make such a determination.
  The lack of specificity of applicability for when this unnecessary 
legislative restriction would take place, and mandate, will be imposed 
on all executive orders, as provided for in the bill, is unnecessary, 
time-consuming, and a waste of resources. In fact, I don't even know 
how any President would get through it.
  I am not saying that executive orders should not have their necessary 
oversight. They can. The Oversight and Accountability Committee and 
other jurisdictional committees can have oversight.
  If this is to reduce inflation, all this bill will do is raise the 
costs of any act or action that is asked for in the executive order.
  Jackson Lee amendment No. 7 would help to ensure that any attempt to 
restrict the powers and authority of executive orders is curtailed in a 
manner that would limit such mandate to apply only in such scenario 
whereby economically accepted standards are considered and applied.
  For example, ``significant impact on inflation'' is limited to 
instances where there has been an increase or decrease in the Consumer 
Price Index, the CPI, inflation by at least 1 percent over the course 
of a year. With that in mind, we would have clarity; we would have an 
understanding; and we would be able to know whether this is irrelevant, 
burdensome, and overly excessive in doing the work on behalf of the 
American people.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support Jackson Lee amendment No. 
7, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, this amendment defines a ``significant 
impact on inflation'' as only an impact that would increase or decrease 
the Consumer Price Index by at least 1 percentage point.
  With all due respect, that is magical thinking. If a single executive 
order were to produce a full 1 percentage point increase in inflation, 
that would not be just a significant effect; it would be a massive 
effect.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation data from January 23, 2023, 
showed that the Consumer Price Index rose 6.4 percent over the prior 
year. A 1 percent point rise would constitute 16 percent of that yearly 
rise. That is a huge portion of yearly inflation.
  Few individual executive orders, even ones that stoke inflation 
significantly, would on their own raise inflation by 1 full percentage 
point or more.
  What the amendment really is trying to do is gut the bill.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Lee of Florida). The gentlewoman from Texas has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the 
Oversight and Accountability Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I want to speak in strong support of the 
gentlewoman's amendment. I thank Ms. Jackson Lee for her leadership in 
terms of real economic policy, which is about making the government an 
instrument of well-being and public good.
  We know we have serious philosophical differences with our friends 
across the aisle. Many of them wanted to dismantle Social Security and 
Medicare. When President Biden arrived the other day, a lot of them 
retreated very quickly from it.
  I would be delighted if someone wants to challenge me on that because 
we have all the quotations from all the Republican Senators and 
Representatives that said it was time to get rid of Social Security and 
phase it out, adopt means testing, increase the age, so on and so 
forth.
  That is a real policy difference. What they have done here really 
falls under the category of symbolic politics. The good gentlewoman 
from Texas has done her best to make this meaningful, and I thank her 
for giving me the opportunity to say that.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
further clarifying our intent.
  Usually, inflation, by the economists, is around 2 percent. To have 
this amendment that indicates 1 percent, it gives some clarity of a 
significant impact.
  I would say this: I believe in oversight, but I don't believe in 
obstruction, intrusion, and stopping work that impacts the American 
people.
  My amendment provides clarity so that the work for the American 
people can go forward. It is evident that President Biden has had a 
significant impact on bringing down inflation and building a better 
quality of life.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support Jackson Lee amendment No. 
7, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam 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 Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1845


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 118-4.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 2(d), add the following:
       (4) Quantifiable inflationary impact.--The term 
     ``quantifiable inflationary impact'' means, with respect to a 
     major Executive order, that such order is estimated to 
     increase or decrease Consumer Price Index inflation by at 
     least 1 percentage point over the course of a year.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, all of us have seen the great work of the Oversight and 
Reform Committee in the two initiatives that we have had today.
  Clearly, we are all sort of stretching to try to understand the 
impact of the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the 
Nation Act, and we are trying to find the substance.
  So my previous amendment was dealing with significant impact, and now 
we are dealing with quantifiable inflationary impact. I wanted to add 
as to what this actually means.
  So my amendment says quantifiable inflationary impact means an 
executive order was estimated to increase or decrease Consumer Price 
Index inflation by at least 1 percentage point over the course of a 
year knowing that inflation is usually 2 percent a year.
  I am just trying to find light in darkness and to try to understand 
what this bill is doing and to give those who are in government to do 
good, those who are trying to solve problems with a legitimate 
executive order to have some guidance that relates to inflation and not 
be of no substance with a bottomless pit, to be very honest with you, 
Madam Chair.
  I am hoping my colleagues will join me in trying to give some 
guidance and some quantifiable definition to quantifiable inflationary 
input by tracking it to what has traditionally been by economists 
inflation 2 percent. We just went to 1 percent to give some definition 
to this to give some ability for anyone to understand how to analyze or 
utilize this legislation if it ever gets to the President's desk.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H952]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, this amendment is similar to my 
colleague's last amendment. It defines a ``quantifiable inflationary 
impact'' as only an impact that would increase or decrease the Consumer 
Price Index by at least 1 percentage point.
  If a given executive order did not have that level of impact, the 
bill, if amended this way, would require no inflation impact 
assessment.
  But as my colleague's prior amendment, this amendment would not 
improve the bill, but instead gut the bill.
  Letting off the hook all executive orders with less than 1 percentage 
point impact on the Consumer Price Index would mean that all or 
virtually all orders would be off the hook. That includes those with 
obviously significant inflationary effects.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  Madam Chair, let me quickly say that, again, the Jackson Lee 
amendment before us is keeping in line with nationally recognized 
standards.
  Many economists agree that a quantifiable inflationary impact is 
deemed to occur when there is an increase or decrease in the Consumer 
Price Index inflation by at least 1 percent and over the course of a 
year. It will not gut the bill. It will let us try to understand the 
bill.
  While H.R. 347 is a clear overreach and would impose improper and 
onerous restrictions upon the executive branch, the Jackson Lee 
amendment tries to find some common ground that will be offered to this 
body as a mere attempt to help ensure that the inappropriate 
limitations as prescribed by this legislation are curtailed in its 
effort to limit the authority of the executive orders.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to consider and vote for the Jackson 
Lee amendment No. 8, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.


             Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Lee of Nevada.

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 118-4.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 2, add the following:
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to suggest that the task of combating inflation and 
     bringing down the cost of living is the sole responsibility 
     of the Executive Office of the President, and not also a key 
     pursuit of the United States House of Representatives during 
     the 118th Congress through thoughtful, productive legislative 
     action.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Mrs. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of my amendment to H.R. 
347, the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation 
Act.
  My amendment underscores the fact that it is not the sole 
responsibility of the executive office of the President to reduce 
inflation, but that productive, bipartisan legislative action is the 
best way that we can collectively combat inflation and bring down the 
cost of living.
  I represent southern Nevada, a part of the country that has been 
especially hit hard by the price hikes driven up by the pandemic, 
supply chain disruptions, and Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
  Nevadan families have been hurting. They have been forced to make 
difficult decisions about how to make ends meet and how to provide for 
their loved ones for far too long, and they are tired of finger-
pointing. They are done with partisan potshots and bickering that 
achieve nothing to help them make ends meet.
  Although the pace of inflation has slowed since hitting a peak last 
summer, the cost of living continues to remain far too high, and that 
is why they and the rest of America are calling on Congress for us to 
do our job, to take real action, and to provide relief. That is what we 
owe them.
  We made progress in this direction during the last Congress with the 
CHIPS and Science Act, the bipartisan infrastructure package, and other 
landmark bills that continue to help strengthen our supply chains and 
relieve price pressures.
  This Congress we need to continue that legacy and set aside political 
posturing and instead advance more thoughtful legislation that will 
actually bring down costs and meet the needs of our constituents.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again: Congress is at our 
best when we put policy first and politics last.
  I implore all of my colleagues to support this amendment because 
finding bipartisan compromise and real progress on our Nation's most 
pressing issue is not only right, it is what we were sent here to do.
  Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I rise in favor of Mrs. Lee's excellent 
amendment here which makes both powerful economic points and powerful 
constitutional points.
  The economic point is that Congress must act in order to bring down 
inflation, Congress must act in order to promote employment, and we 
have acted in partnership with President Biden to do just that in the 
Inflation Reduction Act, in the infrastructure act, and in a whole 
series of bills that we have used to bring inflation down and to 
dramatically lower unemployment in the country.
  But she is making also, I believe, a very powerful constitutional 
point because part of what gets lost in the symbolism of this 
legislation--a mere messaging bill about having executive orders over 
$1 billion, which describes a handful in a year attached in an 
inflation description--what gets lost is that the Constitution in 
Article I sets it up so that Congress is the major definer of economic 
policy in the country.
  It is Congress that is supposed to be laying and collecting taxes and 
impost and dealing with the debt of the country. It is Congress that 
regulates commerce among the States and with foreign countries.
  So the failure to come forward with real productive legislation on 
inflation is also a surrender to the executive branch, and we don't 
need to do that.
  So we should be working with the executive branch as we have done in 
the Inflation Reduction Act, with the infrastructure bill, in lowering 
prescription drug costs, and in lowering the costs for diabetics to get 
their insulin shots to $35 a month. That is the real pathway, not just 
a bunch of reporting bills.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, my colleague's amendment states an 
obvious fact: It is the responsibility of both the President and the 
House of Representatives to combat inflation. I have no quarrel with 
that.
  In fact, in advancing this bill, the House is taking one step toward 
fulfilling its responsibility to combat inflation.
  It is doing so by using this legislative authority to help ensure 
that the President focuses on combating inflation, not issuing 
executive orders that make inflation worse.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam 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 Nevada 
will be postponed.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 28, 2023, on page H952, in the third column, the 
following appeared: Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I demand a 
recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mrs. LEE of 
Nevada. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. 
Pursuant to


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



[[Page H953]]


  



               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Langworthy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 118-4.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Andy Ogles, I 
have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 11, after ``consumer'' insert ``or producer''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 166, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Langworthy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My colleague's amendment makes sure that inflation assessments 
prepared under the bill will address a critical inflationary measure--
the Producer Price Index.
  Now, when people think of inflation, they usually think of the 
Consumer Price Index. But the Producer Price Index is critical as well. 
It measures changes in the selling prices domestic producers receive 
for their output. These prices are from the very first commercial 
transactions for many products and services. Thus, changes in the 
Producer Price Index can signal that changes in prices are about to 
ripple through the economy.
  These should be accounted for in each inflation impact assessment 
that the bill requires.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RASKIN. As far as I understand, the amendment just adds one more 
unnecessary detail to the report, creating greater administrative 
burden and taxpayer costs that are still undefined. It is unclear why 
it is necessary. If it is necessary, it should be adopted across the 
board. But, of course, we had no hearing so we can't really understand 
what the merits of the proposal are, but right now, it just seems like 
a lot more bureaucratic paperwork.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I have no more speakers, and 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. Langworthy).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bean of Florida) having assumed the chair, Ms. Lee of Florida, 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. 347) to require the Executive Office of the President to provide 
an inflation estimate with respect to Executive orders with a 
significant effect on the annual gross budget, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________