[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2865-H2872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2023
General Leave
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 277.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 495 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. 277.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan) as Chair of
the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Rutherford) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1943
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. 277) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or
effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, with
Mr. Moylan (Chair) 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 the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
{time} 1945
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Even before America declared its independence, John Adams emphasized
that a republic is a government of laws and not of men. That is what we
are here to debate tonight.
Are we a government of laws or a government of the executive branch?
Are we going to allow the executive branch to write the laws? Are we
going to turn our Constitution on its head? Have we gone too far
already? I would argue we have, and that is why we need the REINS Act,
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. It provides that
every major regulation that the administration seeks to promulgate has
to come to Congress first, has to be passed by concurrent majorities in
the House and the Senate and signed by the President. This is exactly
what our Founders prescribed. This is a bill about who makes the laws
in our country, and it is about reclaiming our legislative power from
the administrative state.
I think it is appropriate to read from our Constitution at this
point. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: ``All legislative
powers . . . `' not some legislative powers.
``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.''
Does it say it shall consist of a bureaucracy? It does not. All
legislative powers are vested here and in the Senate. That is why we
need to stop letting the executive branch make law.
Are they merely tweaking regulations? Are they determining the amount
of sulfur dioxide that is acceptable to release from a power plant with
civil infractions imposed if a company doesn't comply? No, they are
making laws that put people in prison over in the administrative
branch, and we are doing nothing about it.
We have atrophied. The power of Congress has atrophied. We are almost
like ombudsmen to the executive branch now. This needs to change.
In the words of James Madison: ``The accumulation of all powers,
legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may
justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''
I am afraid that is what we have come to. Too many of our laws, civil
and criminal, are now being written by the executive branch.
Here is what the REINS Act does, and here is why it is important. If
a regulation that is passed by the executive branch or suggested by the
executive branch has more than $100 million of impact--that is a pretty
high threshold. I would argue if it has any impact, we should be
legislating it, but this is a compromise. If it has more than $100
million of impact, it has to come here if it is going to become a law.
They do not get to write the laws, and so that is why we need the
REINS Act.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2023.
Hon. Jodey Arrington,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Arrington: Thank you for consulting with the
Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the
Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, so that the
measure may proceed expeditiously to the House floor.
I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation.
[[Page H2866]]
I will include the exchange of these letters in the
Judiciary Committee's report to accompany this legislation
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this
legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation
regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to
work together on matters of shared jurisdiction during this
Congress. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Jordan,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, May 30, 2023.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan: I am writing regarding H.R. 277, the
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS)
Act, which was ordered reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary on May 24, 2023.
The bill contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In order to
expedite House consideration of H.R. 277, the Committee on
the Budget will forgo action on this bill. This is being done
with the understanding that it does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in H.R. 277 or
similar legislation and that the Committee will be
appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar
legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address
any remaining issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The
Committee on the Budget also reserves the right to seek
appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any
House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation
and requests your support of any such request.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 277 and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in your committee report and in the Congressional
Record during floor consideration of H.R. 277.
Sincerely,
Jodey C. Arrington,
Chairman,
Committee on the Budget.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC, May 25, 2023.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan: On May 25, 2023, the Committee on the
Judiciary ordered H.R. 277, the Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023, reported
to the House. As you know, the Committee on Rules was granted
an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant
to the Committee's jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives over the rules of the House and
special orders of business. The Committee has exclusive
jurisdiction over several provisions related to expedited
procedures for consideration of legislation in the House.
Because of your willingness to consult with my committee
regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill
by the Committee on Rules. By agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules does not
waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 277. In addition, the
Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any
request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 277
or related legislation.
I also request that you include our exchange of letters on
this matter in the committee report to accompany H.R. 277 and
in the Congressional Record during consideration of this
legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Cole,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 25, 2023.
Hon. Tom Cole,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cole: Thank you for consulting with the
Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the
Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, so that the
measure may proceed expeditiously to the House floor.
I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure
does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of
your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation.
I will include the exchange of these letters in the
Judiciary Committee's report to accompany this legislation
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this
legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation
regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to
work together on matters of shared jurisdiction during this
Congress. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Jordan,
Chairman.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, today, we are considering a bill that would
require both houses of Congress to vote to approve, and for the
President to sign, a motion of approval for any major rule in progress
from our executive branch.
We are considering this bill just a week after a splinter group of
the far-right Republicans voted down a rule and held our legislative
calendar hostage all to prove a point about a debt ceiling that already
has passed Congress and has been signed by the President.
Even before this radical move, I had no doubt that the REINS Act
would grind to a halt the most impactful actions by our regulatory
state. Now, after seeing what just a handful of Members will do just to
make a point, I am certain that we cannot let bad measures like this
one move forward.
The REINS Act would frustrate the purpose of government and put our
constituents in harm's way.
Even if the underlying policy behind the REINS Act was a good idea,
which it emphatically is not, I would still argue against it because it
is unconstitutional. By allowing the regulation to be blocked from
being implemented if even one Chamber declines to pass an approval
resolution, the REINS Act is essentially a legislative veto, which the
Supreme Court has already held to be unconstitutional.
The goal of this legislation, quite simply, is to stop the regulatory
process in its tracks, regardless of its impact on public health and
safety.
The bill purports to give Congress control of the rulemaking process,
but Congress already has this power and it exercises it in a number of
ways. Congress can delegate authority to agencies with specificity,
thus limiting the scope of the agency's authority. It can impose
restrictions on rulemaking through appropriations. It can influence
rulemaking through oversight activities. If all of these measures are
insufficient, we also have the blunt tool of the Congressional Review
Act, which allows Congress not only to overturn a rule but also to bar
the agency from ever passing a substantially similar rule.
The REINS Act is not only redundant, it also creates insurmountable
procedural hurdles that would stall the approval of rules of major
impact, rules that would be highly beneficial to the public's health
and safety.
It is important to remember why we have regulations in the first
place. Congress sets broad policies but we delegate authority to
executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft
technical regulations ourselves.
Who here knows how many parts per billion of arsenic should be
allowed in our drinking water? Is 10 the proper amount? Should it be 5
or 15? None of us here knows the answer, but the dedicated
professionals at our Federal agencies, many of whom have decades of
experience and vast technical expertise, undertake a careful process
with numerous procedural safeguards to protect our health and safety.
The recent smog and pollution much of the East Coast experienced last
week as a result of the Canadian wildfires is a great example of why we
need an informed regulatory state to act on our behalf. Decades ago,
many cities had similar levels of pollutants in the air, clogging our
lungs and causing harm to our children and the environment as we saw
last week.
Thanks to expert-informed policies like those regulations instituted
under the Clean Air Act, we rarely have days like we saw last week when
our most vulnerable citizens must take shelter inside to avoid
breathing the air.
Regulations ensure that our air is safe to breathe, our water is safe
to drink, our food is safe to eat, and the lifesaving medications we
depend on are safe and effective.
I feel much better about leaving regulatory decisions to the careful
study of agency experts rather than to Members of Congress who want to
substitute their judgment, subject to the whims of politics.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We now have had a sneak preview of what the next hour of debate is
going
[[Page H2867]]
to look like. The other side is going to argue that we need to give up
more power to the executive branch.
I think our constituents would be appalled. They sent us here and
they say we are not effective enough, yet the other side of the aisle
is going to say, oh, we need to give the power to the executive branch.
We have also heard here already tonight that this bill, which would
restore our Constitution, they say may be unconstitutional. They are
referring to a Supreme Court case that has nothing to do with this
bill, INS v. Chadha, which said you can't have a legislative veto. That
bill that they were ruling on ran afoul of the Constitution because it
didn't require passage in both Chambers and a signature by the
President.
The REINS Act requires passage in both Chambers and a signature by
the President, so their claim that it is unconstitutional is absurd
because this is what is required to restore the Constitution.
Their claim that the REINS Act is redundant because we already have
the Congressional Review Act is equally as absurd. There have been over
90,000 rules passed by the executive branch since the Congressional
Review Act was passed. Only 20 of those have been able to be repealed
by this Chamber and the Senate.
This is not a substitute for the Congressional Review Act. It is not
redundant. This is what is required. It is what is missing right now in
our constitutional structure from what our Founders intended.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming
(Ms. Hageman), who is also a member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory
Reform.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the power of the administrative state to
impose radical and unpopular policies that could never be passed by
Congress violates the separation of powers established by the
Constitution and is a failed business model for running this country.
Section 1 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants all
legislative powers to Congress. Over time, however, Congress has
excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing to
conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability for the content
of the laws it passes.
The REINS Act is critical to Congress reclaiming its rightful
authority and responsibility to legislate. The purpose of this act is
to increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal
regulatory process.
By requiring a vote in Congress, the REINS Act will result in more
carefully drafted and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory
process, and a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the
American people.
The REINS Act is drafted to address what is often referred to as the
nondelegation doctrine, which is a judicially created concept that has
resulted in a dramatic shift in power from the legislative branch to
the executive branch and is flatout unconstitutional. It is what has
allowed regulatory agencies to adopt regulations and even guidance
documents that may impose economic costs of billions of dollars on
certain industries and businesses and ultimately on the American people
without any congressional oversight or involvement at all.
As an example, a few years ago, the USDA issued guidance requiring
cattle to have radiofrequency ID ear tags for tracking purposes. This
would have imposed a $2 billion cost on the cattle industry, yet the
ranchers had no input and Congress never passed such a law.
The current state of affairs has empowered unelected bureaucrats to
legislate without any accountability whatsoever while allowing Members
of Congress, your elected Representatives, to abdicate their most
important constitutional responsibility, the responsibility to write
the laws.
The REINS Act requires Congress to affirmatively approve agency rules
with an annual economic effect of $100 million before they become
effective.
Prior legislative attempts to rein in the administrative state have
been insufficient. The result is that the administrative state has
continued unabated, imposing unwanted, unwise, unlawful, and
unconstitutional policies with impunity.
What do I mean? In 2021, Congress passed just 143 laws, while Federal
agencies issued 3,257 rules. The REINS Act would require affirmative
congressional approval of major agency rules before they take effect.
It does nothing more than require Congress to do as our Founding
Fathers expected, to legislate, and it promotes electoral
accountability.
I cannot fathom why anyone would oppose such accountability and
course-correcting of this legislative ship. Please put America and your
constituents first. Please hold Congress accountable for legislating,
and please vote ``yes'' on the REINS Act.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a cost estimate for
H.R. 277 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.
AT A GLANCE, H.R. 277, REINS ACT OF 2023, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON MAY 24, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of
dollars--
-----------------------------------
2023 2023-2028 2023-2033
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)........... a a a
Revenues............................ a a a
Increase or Decrease (-) in the a a a
Deficit............................
Spending Subject to Appropriation a a a
(Outlays)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. CBO has no basis to estimate the budgetary effects of enacting H.R.
277.
Increases net direct spending in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034? a.
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2034? a.
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
Mandate Effects:
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.
Contains private-sector mandate? No.
The bill would:
Require the Congress to affirmatively approve any
major rule issued by a federal agency for it to take effect
Establish special Congressional procedures and
timelines for enacting a joint resolution of approval for
major rules
Require the Government Accountability Office to
study how many rules are in effect across the federal
government and to estimate the economic cost imposed by those
rules
Estimated budgetary effects would mainly stem from:
Changes in the number and content of major rules
that federal agencies would issue in the future
Areas of significant uncertainty include:
The number and content of major rules that federal
agencies would issue in the future, including the economic
costs and benefits of those rules
Decisions made by the Congress about whether to
approve those rules
Bill Summary
Under current law, a final federal rule can take effect
unless the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.
In contrast, H.R. 277 would require the Congress to enact a
joint resolution of approval before any major rule could take
effect. Thus, under H.R. 277, new major regulations issued by
federal agencies would depend on future legislation.
Estimated Federal Cost
CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)
cannot determine the budgetary effect of making all future
major rules subject to Congressional approval, but we expect
that, in the absence of subsequent legislative action
affecting those rules, enacting H.R. 277 would have
significant effects on direct spending, revenues, and
spending subject to appropriation.
Basis of Estimate
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be
enacted in August 2023.
Background
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996 requires federal
agencies to submit final rules to the Congress and the
Comptroller General before they may take effect. Final rules
may be annulled by the Congress if a joint resolution of
disapproval is enacted into law. H.R. 277 would amend current
law to require instead that the Congress enact a joint
resolution of approval before any major rule may take effect,
thereby making implementation of major rules contingent on
future Congressional action.
The CRA defines a major rule as one that the Office of
Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to
result in:
An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more;
A major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, federal, state, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
Significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
H.R. 277 would establish special Congressional procedures
and explicit timelines for enacting a joint resolution of
approval for major rules. Under the bill, if a joint
resolution of approval is not enacted within 70 legislative
(or session) days of the Congress receiving the major rule
and an accompanying report from a federal agency, the rule
would
[[Page H2868]]
not take effect. Further, the Congress could not reconsider a
joint resolution of approval relating to that rule in the
same Congress. However, a major rule could take effect for
one 90-calendar-day period without Congressional approval if
the President determines, via an executive order, that it was
necessary for one of four reasons: (1) to respond to an
imminent threat to health or safety, (2) to enforce criminal
laws, (3) to protect national security, or (4) to implement
an international trade agreement.
Historical data show that federal agencies published 78
major rules in 2022, and 93 major rules, on average, over the
past five fiscal years. Major rules published in recent years
include ones that established emissions standards for motor
vehicles, set Medicare payment rates, and increased the
minimum wage for federal contractors. However, looking to
recent major rules as a way to estimate the number or scope
of future major rules that would be affected by H.R. 277 may
not be a good guide to what would happen under the bill
because agencies might change the number of major rules they
issue or implement policies differently if the bill was
enacted.
Because major rules are issued to implement current law,
the budgetary effects of anticipated rules are reflected in
CBO's baseline projections. For example, annual rules
establish new payment rates for a variety of Medicare
services that reflect changes in the price indices used for
those services under current law. Those rules often result in
an increase in payment rates and thus an increase in
spending, which are incorporated in the baseline.
Under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (Deficit Control Act), which governs the contents of
the baseline, actions that are contingent on future
Congressional action are generally not included in CBO's
projections. H.R. 277 would amend that Act to require that
CBO continue to assume that any planned major rule will go
into effect, unless the rule has already been issued and the
Congress has not enacted a resolution of approval within the
specified 70-day period. (Without that provision amending the
Deficit Control Act, H.R. 277 would result in baseline
projections that did not reflect the budgetary effects of
major rules.)
Under H.R. 277, CBO's baseline projections would continue
to include the budgetary effects of major rules even though
future Congressional action would be necessary to approve
them. For example, if H.R. 277 is enacted, baseline
projections would continue to reflect the assumption that
payment rates and related federal spending for Medicare
providers would rise over time, even though raising those
rates would require future Congressional action. Accordingly,
a Congressional resolution of approval for a major rule
raising such rates would be estimated as having no cost
relative to CBO's baseline projections. (CBO's subsequent
baseline projections would be updated to exclude the
budgetary effects of a proposed rule if is the Congress does
not approve it.)
Direct Spending
To assess the budgetary effects of H.R. 277, CBO considered
the costs and savings that would be realized if anticipated
major rules do not take effect. The consequences would vary
tremendously because the budgetary effects of different rules
vary considerably.
Preventing some major rules from taking effect would result
in costs to the federal government, while preventing others
would result in savings. On net, CBO estimates that enacting
H.R. 277 would probably have a significant effect on direct
spending (more than $500,000), but we cannot determine the
magnitude or direction of those changes for any year or over
time.
Many major rules that occur routinely under current law are
related to the government's health care programs, in
particular Medicare. For example, some rules establish annual
updates to payment rates for services provided by hospitals,
skilled nursing facilities, and other Medicare providers.
Enacting H.R. 277 would freeze payment structures for those
providers at current levels pending future Congressional
actions. Similarly, payment rates (such as the annual benefit
amount for each person) under some other federal programs
might also be frozen under the bill in the absence of future
Congressional actions. CBO cannot estimate the net effect of
all such changes.
Revenues
Enacting H.R. 277 also would affect tax revenues, and JCT
expects that preventing regulations from going into effect
could reduce collections of revenues in some cases and
increase collections in other cases. JCT cannot determine the
sign or magnitude of the possible effects on revenues.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
H.R. 277 also would affect programs funded through the
annual appropriation process. However, CBO cannot determine
the magnitude of such effects. For example, if major rules
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency could not take
effect, spending by the agency would decline, assuming future
appropriations were reduced accordingly.
The legislation also would require the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to quantify the number of major
and nonmajor rules in effect as of the date of enactment, and
to estimate their total economic cost. Using information from
GAO about the cost of similar studies, CBO estimates that
completing that requirement would cost less than $500,000.
Uncertainty
On net, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 277 would likely
have a significant effect on direct spending and revenues,
but we cannot determine the magnitude or direction of those
changes for any year or over time.
The budgetary effects of enacting the legislation are
highly uncertain principally because CBO cannot predict:
The number and content of major rules that federal agencies
would issue in the future,
Decisions made by the Congress about whether to approve
those rules, or
The economic costs and benefits of those rules, including
their effects on the federal budget.
Pay-As-You-Go Considerations
The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation
affecting direct spending or revenues. Pay-as-you-go
procedures apply to H.R. 277 because enacting the legislation
would affect direct spending and revenues. However, CBO and
JCT cannot determine the magnitude or direction of those
effects.
Increase in Long-Term Net Direct Spending and Deficits
CBO cannot determine the magnitude or direction of the
budgetary effects of H.R. 277. As a result, CBO cannot
determine whether the legislation would increase net direct
spending by more than $2.5 billion or on-budget deficits by
more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2034.
Mandates
H.R. 277 would impose no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. However, by requiring major rules to be approved by a
joint resolution of the Congress the bill could affect public
and private entities. Those joint resolutions could delay or
halt the implementation of major rules that could slow
reimbursements to public and private entities or change
regulatory requirements followed by those entities. CBO has
no basis for estimating the magnitude of those effects
because of the uncertainty about the number and content of
regulations affected, but the costs and savings to public and
private entities could be significant.
Estimate Approved By
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Chair, like my good colleague here from Kentucky,
I rise today to remind this Chamber that our Founders put Congress in
charge of writing our laws, not unelected bureaucrats at Federal
agencies.
Yet, since taking office, President Biden has signed more than 100
executive orders and insidious rules fast flowing from executive branch
agencies creating miles of red tape and running up American taxpayers'
tab by $1.5 trillion.
My constituents back home are struggling to make ends meet, and it is
a direct consequence of this administration's misguided policies and
their insidious rulemaking. It is past time that we put a stop to the
President's abuse of executive power.
Last fall, House Republicans made a commitment to our constituents
that this Congress would hold the government accountable. This week,
with the REINS Act, we have an opportunity to show the American people
that we are keeping that commitment.
The very first bill I cosponsored 6 years ago when I first came to
Congress was the REINS Act. The REINS Act stops Federal agencies from
legislating by fiat by requiring Congress to approve all major rules
before they can be enacted.
This bill returns Congress' Article I legislative authority back to
where it belongs, and it will protect hardworking, taxpaying Americans.
The REINS Act is a strong start, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes.''
{time} 2000
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend who serves on the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this bill presents a question that is
fundamental to the central architecture of our Republic: Who is to make
law?
This has been pointed out, and the Constitution is very clear on
this: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States.''
[[Page H2869]]
What about that passage do my friends on the other side of the aisle
not understand?
The Founders wanted it to be hard to make laws so that society isn't
smothered by them. They wanted every voice in the land to be heard
through their elected representatives and be accountable and answerable
to the people.
The modern regulatory state takes these powers from the people and
gives them to unelected bureaucrats. An unelected agency writes the
law, and then it enforces the law that it has written. If it accuses
you of violating its law, you have to answer to the agency in a court
run by that agency without a jury, and the agency keeps the fines that
it assesses on you. Is there any more profound threat to a democracy
than that?
Ten times more laws are written by the regulatory agencies today than
by the people's representatives. Americans now have 10 times the chance
of being hauled into an administrative law court for breaking an agency
regulation than they have of being charged with a statutory crime where
they have the full protection of the Bill of Rights.
The REINS Act starts to put this genie back in the bottle by
requiring that regulatory acts that impose more than $100 million of
costs to the American public must be enacted by the elected Congress.
That means if you don't like that law, you can hold your elected
representative directly accountable. That is what a democracy is, a
government that answers to the people.
Opponents of this bill tell us that we must defer to the experts.
That is not a democracy. That is an oligarchy. We have just endured the
folly of experts--lockdowns and mandates the experts told us would slow
the spread of COVID. We now have study after study documenting that
their measures not only failed to protect us but did incalculable
damage to the economy and to the education of our children, and
needlessly cost lives through delayed health screenings and treatments,
drug and alcohol-related deaths, and increased suicide rates. No
representative voted for these measures. The regulatory state simply
imposed them.
Experts are there to advise us from every perspective. It is then the
responsibility of elected representatives on behalf of the people to
sort through their perspectives and advise and chart a course that
takes into account all the issues at hand and be accountable and
answerable to the people for those decisions.
Mr. Chair, this bill starts us back toward that democracy.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will note that we have letters
representing over 180 public interest organizations, health experts,
and labor unions opposed to the REINS Act because of the harm this bill
presents to our country's health and welfare.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the letters of opposition.
March 9, 2023.
Dear Senator/Representative: The following undersigned
organizations representing the public health, medical and
patient advocacy communities, write to you to state our
strong opposition to S. 184 and H.R. 277--the Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS
Act), and we ask you to oppose this harmful legislation.
The REINS Act is a threat to public health. It would add
major roadblocks to health-protective regulations by
requiring Congress to approve all ``major'' rules issued by
federal agencies within a 70-day window. This includes public
health rules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food
and Drug Administration, among other federal agencies that
protect the health and safety of American citizens. Under the
REINS Act, the default would be Congress blocking important
and critical protections including clean air, public health,
safety and healthcare measures that have already been
authorized by current law.
The REINS act would unilaterally weaken the implementation
of public health and safety safeguards that require the
promulgation of significant rules that benefit millions of
Americans. These include rules that are statutorily required
to prevent deaths, illness and injury and to protect the
public health. Additionally, the REINS Act would give
Congress the power to prevent a ``major'' rule from being
effectively implemented simply by taking no action. This step
delays safeguards and means that agencies would not only have
to reckon with a significantly longer time frame to pass any
meaningful rules, but also that the health and safety of the
public would remain in limbo and under threat. As we've
tragically witnessed in East Palestine, Ohio, federal rules
are imperative to ensuring the health and safety of the
public.
The REINS Act would also hinder the ability of federal
agencies to act and respond to threats swiftly and
effectively. While there are some exceptions that allow a
rule to be implemented for one 90-day period without
Congressional approval--it is not enough.
The REINS Act is a threat to our nation's health. We urge
you to oppose the REINS Act and other similar legislation.
Sincerely,
American Lung Association, Allergy & Asthma Network,
Alliance for Nurses for Healthy Environments, ALS
Association, American Heart Association, Asthma and Allergy
Foundation of America, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
Climate Psychiatry Alliance, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Health Care Without Harm, Hemophilia Federation of America,
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners,
National Environmental Health Association, National
Organization for Rare Disorders, Physicians for Social
Responsibility.
____
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2023.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jerry Nadler,
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, and Members of
the Committee: On behalf of the American Federation of
Government Employees, which represents over 750,000 federal
and D.C. government workers across the country, I write to
urge you to oppose the following legislation being considered
for markup in the House Judiciary Committee this week.
Please oppose H.R. 277, the ``Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2023,''
introduced by Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL). This bill
would require Congress to approve any federal rule or
regulation the Office of Management and Budget determines to
have an economic impact of $100 million or more according to
before it is imposed on the American people.
Federal agencies should have delegated authority to ensure
regulations keep the American public healthy and safe.
Government regulations foster job growth and ensure that
workplaces are healthy, safe, and accountable. Federal
agencies, in conducting rulemaking, are simply implementing
programs and regulatory systems that were already approved by
Congress and signed into law. Involving Congress in the
details of these processes will result in paralysis, the
politicization of rulemaking, and poorer outcomes for the
health, safety, and wellbeing of the American public.
Please oppose H.R. 357, the ``Ensuring Accountability in
Agency Rulemaking Act,'' introduced by Representative Ben
Kline (R-VA). This bill would require that any agency rule
promulgated under notice and comment procedures must be
issued and signed by an individual who was appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. This bill would
paralyze the functioning of agencies during periods when they
have acting heads, and could further complicate and
politicize the confirmation process for agency heads.
Unnecessary restrictions on government rulemaking will no
doubt restrict the process and prevent the full force of
oversight to ensure the American people have a strong and
productive government supported by federal workers who are
valued and respected.
Sincerely,
Julie N. Tippens,
Director,
Legislative Department.
____
United Steelworkers,
March 10, 2023.
Statement for the Record of Anna Fendley, Director of State and
Regulatory Policy, The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (USW) for the House Committee on the Judiciary's
Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and
Antitrust hearing on ``Reining in the Administrative State: Reclaiming
Congress's Legislative Power''
The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (USW) is North America's largest
industrial union representing 1.2 million active and retired
members. We welcome the opportunity to comment and submit
this statement on the subject of today's hearing.
We strongly believe that the Administrative agencies play
critical roles in implementing the laws that Congress passes
through regulations. Regulations are imperative for
protecting public health, welfare, and safety, as well as our
shared environment. For our members, regulations allow them
to work and live in safer, cleaner, more prosperous
communities across the country. Regulations also help level
the playing field among businesses and encourage innovation.
Legally, Congress grants federal agencies authority to
promulgate and enforce regulations where necessary using
their policy, scientific, and technical expertise. The
current rulemaking process requires that professional experts
work diligently to collect and process complex information.
Additionally, agencies must solicit and incorporate input
[[Page H2870]]
from a broad range of interested stakeholders when designing
new rules.
For example, USW members who work in oil refineries and
chemical plants and their communities are protected by strong
process safety management regulations. Our members who work
in gas utilities and on pipelines are protected by
regulations from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA). Steelworkers who make steel for
automobiles have more job security because fuel economy rules
incentivized their employers to innovate and invest in making
stronger, lighter steel. These are just a few examples of the
benefits to USW members.
It is also imperative to note that the current regulatory
process isn't perfect. However, legislation like H.R. 277,
the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of
2023 (REINS Act), represents an extreme threat to public
health and safety. This legislation would obstruct the
ability of federal agencies to enact rules by inappropriately
injecting congressional dysfunction and political
considerations into the regulatory process. H.R. 277 would
require both houses of Congress to approve every major
regulation within 70 session or legislative days before it
can take effect. By doing nothing or through partisan
gridlock, Congress could stop all major regulations from
being finalized, including those that are not controversial.
Thus, this risks blocking agencies' efforts to fulfill their
statutory mandates to pursue public protections and
significantly wasting federal government resources.
We believe that improving and strengthening the regulatory
process is critical to ensuring that our federal agencies are
transparent, accountable, and effective at delivering strong
regulatory protections for consumers, workers, public health,
and the environment. That is why we encourage the
Subcommittee to evaluate legislative proposals that provide a
roadmap for reforming the regulatory process, such as the
``Stop Corporate Capture Act'', which is being reintroduced
for the 118th Congress today. This legislation would reduce
special interest influence on the rulemaking process,
increase transparency around federal agency decision-making,
clear procedural bottlenecks that delay regulatory
protections, empower the public to hold agencies accountable
for enforcing the rules, and build a foundation for
consideration of social equity in the rulemaking process.
The American people and American businesses need smart and
sensible regulations to ensure that all players in our
economy are held to the same standards. We stand ready to
assist the Subcommittee in its important work to ensure that
our regulatory process is transparent, assessible, and
protective of the public. Thank you.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), the sponsor of the REINS Act.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my
bill, H.R. 277, the REINS Act, the largest regulatory reform bill in
American history.
I know that sounds pretty major, but the REINS Act is actually a
commonsense bill that would require every new major rule costing more
than $100 million to be approved by Congress before going into effect.
I know that sounds radical to some, but actually, it is quite a bit of
common sense.
This is a bill that every single Member of this body should support
to rein in a largely unchecked bureaucracy that is undermining the role
of the very body in which we have the honor to serve. Every single
Member in this Chamber should honor and support government
transparency, government accountability, and empowerment of their
constituents.
Mr. Chair, I know that not everyone in Washington wants more power
for the people. In fact, during his first 2 years in office, the
President added more than $300 billion in new regulatory costs to the
economy. That burden was left on the backs of we the American people.
Additionally, the American Action Forum found that new rules in his
first 2 years of office required 193 million hours of compliance
paperwork. Mr. Chair, 193 million hours to comply with new regulations
from nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are accountable to no one,
certainly not the American people.
To really drive home how wild government has grown under the Biden
administration, think about this: Since the beginning of his time as
President, Biden has added an average of 1,641 pages to the Federal
Registry every single week. That is astonishing.
According to the Foundation for Government Accountability,
regulations cost Americans $2 trillion every year in compliance costs,
economic losses, and other expenses. Those costs are due to ever-
increasing regulatory actions that lack proper accountability by
Congress.
It is now time for Congress to reassert its role by placing new
checks on the regulatory actions and the regulatory regime that
negatively impact Americans in all walks of life across the country.
Our constituents deserve to have their voices heard and be able to
hold those in the Federal Government making decisions that have impacts
on their daily lives and businesses accountable. Under the ever-growing
regulatory state, that is not the case. Rather, nameless, faceless
bureaucrats are making decisions and creating new regulations that have
impacts to our day-to-day lives.
In the case of this bill, these new regulations that have an impact
of more than $100 million would be subject to coming back to Congress.
When I talk to my constituents about this bill, they cannot believe
how vast the regulatory regime truly is. Members of this body who argue
against this bill are, in fact, arguing against their own self-interest
and the role of Congress in our political system.
In Federalist No. 51, James Madison states: ``Ambition must be made
to counteract ambition.'' Right now, the ambitions of the executive
branch down the street have far exceeded those of the regulatory
branch. This has gone on for 100 years, regardless of the party that is
in the White House.
When it comes to regulations, I quite frankly don't care who is in
the White House. I will come down to this floor in this Chamber every
single Congress and fight for this bill because we in Congress must do
what the Founders of this Nation and the Framers of our Constitution
expected us to do--provide a proper, equal check to the executive and
judicial branches of the government.
Look no further than the Federal Register to determine the volume of
regulations being proposed or finalized every single year. These are
actions that Congress has no say in prior to going into effect and
having the force of law. We are the lawmakers, not the folks down the
street.
The current Congressional Review Act process to disapprove of
administrative actions is after the fact, going after regulations and
actions after they have gone into effect. It is a useful tool but one
that is not particularly effective. It is inadequate to match the size
of the administrative branch and the number of regulations that are
being proposed and finalized.
Here are just a few examples of executive actions that could have
been prevented if the REINS Act had been in effect: student loan
forgiveness and loan repayment pauses, which could cost us in excess of
$1 trillion; the Biden oil and gas lease sale ban; the unilateral
increase in SNAP benefits through new agency standards that increase
spending on the program by 25 percent, totaling more than $115 billion
in 2022 alone; the expansion of subsidies for ObamaCare, costing more
than $45 billion with a b, leaving people with less care, worse care
that is, in fact, more expensive; new climate risk disclosure
requirements for publicly traded companies, including the companies
that they do business with, putting an undue administrative burden on
small mom-and-pop shops. The list goes on and on.
Let us not forget the ridiculous Federal regulations like fines and
fees for Good Samaritans who untangle whales from fishing nets.
One of the most ridiculous ones under title 21 of the U.S. Code makes
it a Federal crime to sell spaghetti thicker than 0.11 inches in
diameter. I couldn't believe it when I actually read this. It is a
Federal crime.
When you start digging into the impact that that has, think about
this, Americans consume, on average, 6 billion pounds of spaghetti a
year. It is a $30 billion industry in the United States alone, and we
have a regulation on the books to monitor the size of spaghetti, like
we don't have anything better to do.
Some of these regulations sound silly, but I promise they have a very
real impact. They drive up costs and ultimately cost us, the American
people, money.
[[Page H2871]]
Recently, a nationwide poll was conducted in which Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents from all across the country of all
demographics were educated on the REINS Act and then asked their
opinion on it. The majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents
all favored the REINS Act.
In fact, this poll found that more Democrats than Republicans were in
favor of this policy. Seventy-two percent of Democrats were in favor,
and 71 percent of Republicans were in favor of it. I sent this very
poll to every single Republican and Democrat with a personalized letter
before this debate here tonight.
There is no excuse for not knowing about this poll and the fact that
their constituencies support more accountability and transparency in
this Chamber. I just can't wrap my head around why, as a Member of
Congress, you wouldn't want people in your district to be empowered to
know that you are exercising your Article I authority as a Member of
the people's House instead of playing partisan games and chasing
political narratives that are nonexistent.
Just last week, I had a meeting with homebuilders from my district
who were in town for their annual fly-in. In fact, 35 percent of the
cost of new homes being built in Florida is due to regulations. That is
insane. For first-time home buyers, you are now paying 35 percent more,
not just because of inflation, not just because of a broken supply
chain, but because of Federal regulations.
You can find examples in every single sector across this great
country. That is why I encourage all of my colleagues to talk to local
stakeholders and understand how regulations affect their constituents
and impact the costs of goods, energy, services, heck, the cost of
living. Talk to individuals in any sector, and they will tell you that
there are burdensome regulations that are killing them.
It is our job to step in. You will hear the negative impact. You will
understand that Congress did not explicitly approve these regulations.
That is why if you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or heck,
just an American who believes in the rule of law, who believes in our
Constitution and wants more transparency and accountability in the
government, you will vote for this bill and support this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Posey), my good friend.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
yielding today.
Today, the issue is rules reform. Let's answer some commonly asked
questions about agency rules.
Question number one: What is a rule? To be clear, rules were made by
unelected, unrecallable, unaccountable bureaucrats.
Question number two: Why do agencies write rules? It has been said on
the floor, and even by an expert commentator on C-SPAN, that Congress
created agencies to write rules. Wrong. Congress created agencies to
implement laws passed by elected people, not create new laws outside of
their delegated authority.
Question number three: Most people back home think Congress makes all
the Federal laws. Is that true? Wrong. For every law elected
representatives make, unelected, unrecallable, unaccountable
bureaucrats can make 1,000 or more new rules enforceable as laws. Last
time I checked, there were 170-some volumes of Federal code that were
actually passed by elected representatives. The laws known as rules
made by unelected, unrecallable, unaccountable bureaucrats could fill
this Chamber.
{time} 2015
Question number four: Can an American citizen end up in court or in
prison for violating a rule made by an unelected, unrecallable,
unaccountable bureaucrat? The answer is yes. It is estimated that if a
citizen is called into Federal court, it is 100 to 1,000 times more
likely to be a result of violating a rule made by an unelected person
than a law.
Question number five: Are there any further restrictions on
unelected, unrecallable, unaccountable bureaucrats' ability to write
rules enforceable as laws that can end up putting American citizens in
court or in prison? Yes. Currently, unelected, unrecallable,
unaccountable bureaucrats who write a rule with an impact of over $100
million, as you heard earlier, have to write a cost-benefit analysis.
Question number six: Does that mean that they can write a rule with
an impact of less than $100 million without doing one? Sure. It seems
like it is okay to write rules as enforceable as laws that negatively
affect Americans if the cost is estimated to be only $99,999,999.
Question number seven: Do agencies always perform cost-benefit
analyses as required if the proposed rule has a $100 million or greater
impact? The answer is no. Some unelected, unrecallable, unaccountable
bureaucrats, unfortunately, are also arrogant, petulant, and defiant.
One study revealed one rule had an $80 billion negative impact, but the
agency had refused to do the required study saying, you, meaning
Congress, can't make me, and we couldn't.
Not all Federal rules writers are guilty of bad behavior, for sure.
We have many employees who add great value to the process, but we must
establish needed guidelines for those who exceed and abuse legislative
intent and authority.
I could go on for hours, but my time is limited, so I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation to regain authority for
lawmaking back from unelected, unaccountable, unrecallable bureaucrats
by supporting this much-needed legislation reform.
Before I yield, I would like to say that I collected Federal
Registers for the last 4 years of the last administration. Instead of
throwing them in the trash like most people do because we can't act on
them, I started building a stack in the corner. My office became a
tourist attraction. I had people from almost every State come into my
office and want to have their picture taken before the stack of rules
implemented by unelectable, unrecallable, unaccountable bureaucrats.
How big do you think that stack got to be after 4 years? A lot of
people say probably over my head. Actually, it was seven stacks over 10
feet high, over 70 linear feet of rules, longer than the entire amount
of laws passed in this country since its founding.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again for yielding.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill to committee. If the House rules permitted, we would
have offered the motion with an important amendment to the bill. The
amendment would have ensured that vulnerable groups like veterans and
their health will not be harmed by the politicization and delay of
critical executive branch rules under the REINS Act.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the proposed text of the
amendment.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On June 13, 2023, page H2871, in the third column, the following
appeared: Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the proposed text
of the motion to recommit.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. Chairman, I
include in the Record the proposed text of the amendment.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. Nadler moves to recommit H.R. 277 to the Committee on
the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to
the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not take
effect until the date on which the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs certifies to Congress that implementation of this
Act, and the amendments made by this Act, will not delay the
provision of benefits or health services to veterans by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, although the REINS Act will harm everyone, we
must at least ensure that those who serve in our Armed Forces are not
further harmed by this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is just the latest effort by
Republicans to dismantle and destroy the regulatory process, a process
that protects our health and safety each and every day.
Regulations ensure that we have clean air to breathe, clear water to
drink, and safe food to eat. They ensure that children's toys and cribs
are safe, that medications are safe and effective, and that the planes,
trains, and automobiles we depend on for transportation will keep us
safe. They ensure that consumers are protected from fraud and
discrimination, that workers are treated fairly, that veterans are
fairly compensated for their service, and so much more.
[[Page H2872]]
However, Republicans want to stop this process in its tracks and put
our health and safety at risk, just as they stopped our process of
legislating last week, all to prove a point to leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chairman, it is good to join Representative Massie,
once again, here tonight in regard to the REINS Act.
I want to share with everybody a real-world example of how the REINS
Act could be used. I think back to the Boiler MACT issue, which was
over a decade ago.
That was an administrative rule that was put in place
administratively. It was not passed by the United States Congress. If
the REINS Act would have been in place, we would have prevented the
example I am about to give you.
There was a smokestack that had to be built on a paper plant in
northern Wisconsin that cost $10-plus million. It was meant to reduce
emissions that were coming from that paper plant.
Do you know how much it reduced emissions, Mr. Chairman? Zero. No
emissions were reduced as a result of them spending $10 million as a
result of this administrative rule, Boiler MACT, that was put in place.
Think about the ripple effect of that. That company had to spend $10
million of their scarce capital on that. They wanted to do an expansion
to be able to build an addition onto their plant that would make an
advanced fiber that is being used on modern-day jets, commercial
aircraft.
As a result of that, they had to go to Oneida County and get a loan
in order to do the expansion on their plant. It put the taxpayers of
Oneida County on the hook rather than them simply spending their scarce
capital and being able to make this addition that created another 40 to
50 jobs.
That is the impact that we see as a result of the people's House not
voting on something like this.
This is really simple. These are the ABCs of good government. The
agencies should have to come back to the United States Congress to be
able to do something--that is, to institute a rule that is going to
cost more than tens of millions of dollars.
If this would have happened, if this would have been in effect, we
would have not seen something like this previously.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
his comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat myself. For all the
reasons I gave a couple of minutes ago, this is a very bad bill. It is
very dangerous legislation for the peace and health and safety of the
people of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to oppose it, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, reasonable minds may differ about certain
policies, but under the Constitution, we should all be on the same page
about who should make law. Congress should make law.
Think about some of the laws that have been promulgated by the
administrative branch, things that should have come to Congress. I got
on an airplane a few years ago, and they said that Federal law requires
that you wear a mask.
Do you know what I thought to myself? We never voted on that law. We
should have voted on whether that should be a law or not. I would have
voted ``no.''
It probably would not have passed, and if it had and our constituents
decided it was too onerous, they could appeal to us, not some
bureaucrat.
What are some other examples? The vaccine mandates that cost people
their jobs. These were not laws passed by Congress. These were from the
executive branch.
Then, tonight, we have just had two bipartisan votes to repeal
executive branch rules, one on the pistol brace and one on stoves--
bipartisan.
What does that mean? That means if they had tried to bring those as
laws through Congress as the Founders had intended, they would have
failed because there would have been bipartisan opposition to that.
We should be making the laws here. It is very simple. When unelected,
unaccountable, unrecallable bureaucrats write the laws, then the laws
become more numerous and more onerous. We should pass the REINS Act and
bring the constitutional authority back to Congress to pass
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rose). All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Van
Orden) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rose, 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. 277) to
amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major
rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________