[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.

                          ____________________