Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 104 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2902-H2916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2023

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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 277.
Will the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan) kindly resume the chair.

[[Page H2903]]

{time} 1218

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 further 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 in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, June 13,
2023, all time for general debate pursuant to House Resolution 495 had
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 118-6 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall
be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 277

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Regulations from the
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023'' or the ``REINS
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

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

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING.

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

``CHAPTER 8--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING

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

``Sec. 801. Congressional review

``(a)(1)(A) Before a rule may take effect, the Federal
agency promulgating such rule shall publish in the Federal
Register a list of information on which the rule is based,
including data, scientific and economic studies, and cost-
benefit analyses, and identify how the public can access such
information online, and shall submit to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General a report containing--
``(i) a copy of the rule;
``(ii) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
``(iii) a classification of the rule as a major or nonmajor
rule, including an explanation of the classification
specifically addressing each criteria for a major rule
contained within subparagraphs (A) through (C) of section
804(2);
``(iv) a list of any other related regulatory actions
intended to implement the same statutory provision or
regulatory objective as well as the individual and aggregate
economic effects of those actions; and
``(v) the proposed effective date of the rule.
``(B) On the date of the submission of the report under
subparagraph (A), the Federal agency promulgating the rule
shall submit to the Comptroller General and make available to
each House of Congress--
``(i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the
rule, if any, including an analysis of any jobs added or
lost, differentiating between public and private sector jobs;
``(ii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 603, 604,
605, 607, and 609 of this title;
``(iii) the agency's actions pursuant to sections 202, 203,
204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; and
``(iv) any other relevant information or requirements under
any other Act and any relevant Executive orders.
``(C) Upon receipt of a report submitted under subparagraph
(A), each House shall provide copies of the report to the
chairman and ranking member of each standing committee with
jurisdiction under the rules of the House of Representatives
or the Senate to report a bill to amend the provision of law
under which the rule is issued.
``(2)(A) The Comptroller General shall provide a report on
each major rule to the committees of jurisdiction by the end
of 15 calendar days after the submission or publication date.
The report of the Comptroller General shall include an
assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural steps
required by paragraph (1)(B) and an assessment of whether the
major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on private-
sector activity.
``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller
General's report under subparagraph (A).
``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall take effect upon enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802 or as
provided for in the rule following enactment of a joint
resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is
later.
``(4) A nonmajor rule shall take effect as provided by
section 803 after submission to Congress under paragraph (1).
``(5) If a joint resolution of approval relating to a major
rule is not enacted within the period provided in subsection
(b)(2), then a joint resolution of approval relating to the
same rule may not be considered under this chapter in the
same Congress by either the House of Representatives or the
Senate.
``(b)(1) A major rule shall not take effect unless the
Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval described
under section 802.
``(2) If a joint resolution described in subsection (a) is
not enacted into law by the end of 70 session days or
legislative days, as applicable, beginning on the date on
which the report referred to in subsection (a)(1)(A) is
received by Congress (excluding days either House of Congress
is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of
Congress), then the rule described in that resolution shall
be deemed not to be approved and such rule shall not take
effect.
``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a major rule may
take effect for one 90-calendar-day period if the President
makes a determination under paragraph (2) and submits written
notice of such determination to the Congress.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the
President by Executive order that the major rule should take
effect because such rule is--
``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or
safety or other emergency;
``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws;
``(C) necessary for national security; or
``(D) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an
international trade agreement.
``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under
this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under
section 802.
``(d)(1) In addition to the opportunity for review
otherwise provided under this chapter, in the case of any
rule for which a report was submitted in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(A) during the period beginning on the date
occurring--
``(A) in the case of the Senate, 60 session days; or
``(B) in the case of the House of Representatives, 60
legislative days,
before the date the Congress is scheduled to adjourn a
session of Congress through the date on which the same or
succeeding Congress first convenes its next session, sections
802 and 803 shall apply to such rule in the succeeding
session of Congress.
``(2)(A) In applying sections 802 and 803 for purposes of
such additional review, a rule described under paragraph (1)
shall be treated as though--
``(i) such rule were published in the Federal Register on--
``(I) in the case of the Senate, the 15th session day; or
``(II) in the case of the House of Representatives, the
15th legislative day,
after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes; and
``(ii) a report on such rule were submitted to Congress
under subsection (a)(1) on such date.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
affect the requirement under subsection (a)(1) that a report
shall be submitted to Congress before a rule can take effect.
``(3) A rule described under paragraph (1) shall take
effect as otherwise provided by law (including other
subsections of this section).

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

``(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution addressing a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii) that--
``(A) bears no preamble;
``(B) bears the following title (with blanks filled as
appropriate): `Approving the rule submitted by ___ relating
to ___.';
``(C) includes after its resolving clause only the
following (with blanks filled as appropriate): `That Congress
approves the rule submitted by ___ relating to ___.'; and
``(D) is introduced pursuant to paragraph (2).
``(2) After a House of Congress receives a report
classifying a rule as major pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A)(iii), the majority leader of that House (or his
or her respective designee) shall introduce (by request, if
appropriate) a joint resolution described in paragraph (1)--
``(A) in the case of the House of Representatives, within 3
legislative days; and
``(B) in the case of the Senate, within 3 session days.
``(3) A joint resolution described in paragraph (1) shall
not be subject to amendment at any stage of proceeding.
``(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred in each House of Congress to the committees
having jurisdiction over the provision of law under which the
rule is issued.

[[Page H2904]]

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

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

``(a) For purposes of this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the
period beginning on the date on which the report referred to
in section 801(a)(1)(A) is received by Congress and ending 60
days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is
adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress),
the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
`That Congress disapproves the nonmajor rule submitted by the
___ relating to ___, and such rule shall have no force or
effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately filled in).
``(b) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall
be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with
jurisdiction.
``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred
a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not
reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint
resolution) at the end of 15 session days after the date of
introduction of the joint resolution, such committee may be
discharged from further consideration of such joint
resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members
of the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be placed on
the calendar.
``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or when a committee is
discharged (under subsection (c)) from further consideration
of a joint resolution described in subsection (a), it is at
any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion
to the same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution, and all
points of order against the joint resolution (and against
consideration of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion
is not subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or
to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other
business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint
resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain
the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of.
``(2) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on
all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith,
shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
joint resolution. A motion to further limit debate is in
order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to
postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution
is not in order.
``(3) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion
of the debate on a joint resolution described in subsection
(a), and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate
if requested in accordance with the rules of the Senate, the
vote on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
``(4) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to
the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution described in subsection (a)
shall be decided without debate.
``(e) In the Senate, the procedure specified in subsection
(c) or (d) shall not apply to the consideration of a joint
resolution respecting a nonmajor rule--
``(1) after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning
with the applicable submission or publication date; or
``(2) if the report under section 801(a)(1)(A) was
submitted during the period referred to in section 801(d)(1),
after the expiration of the 60 session days beginning on the
15th session day after the succeeding session of Congress
first convenes.
``(f) If, before the passage by one House of a joint
resolution of that House described in subsection (a), that
House receives from the other House a joint resolution
described in subsection (a), then the following procedures
shall apply:
``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee.
``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in
subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if
no joint resolution had been received from the other House;
but
``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.

``Sec. 804. Definitions

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

[[Page H2905]]

``(A) in the case of a major rule, the date on which the
Congress receives the report submitted under section
801(a)(1); and
``(B) in the case of a nonmajor rule, the later of--
``(i) the date on which the Congress receives the report
submitted under section 801(a)(1); and
``(ii) the date on which the nonmajor rule is published in
the Federal Register, if so published.

``Sec. 805. Judicial review

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

``Sec. 806. Exemption for monetary policy

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

``Sec. 807. Effective date of certain rules

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

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

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

Section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907(b)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Budgetary effects of rules subject to section 802 of
title 5, united states code.--Any rule subject to the
congressional approval procedure set forth in section 802 of
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, affecting budget
authority, outlays, or receipts shall be assumed to be
effective unless it is not approved in accordance with such
section.''.

SEC. 5. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY OF RULES.

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

The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in part A of House Report 118-108. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 21, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 3, insert after line 21 the following (and redesignate
provisions accordingly):
``(iv) an estimate of the effect on inflation of the rule;
and''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in favor of amendment No. 1 as it revises the Comptroller
General's congressional review report to include an estimate of the
effect on inflation.
Without my amendment, the real-life consequences of Joe Biden's
spending spree in the White House will not be taken into account by
Congress as they perform their Article I duties. This will provide
transparency for the administration to answer to the people's House.
The GOP majority has been empowered to hold the Biden administration
accountable and demand transparency by revealing just how much Biden's
executive orders are costing American families and small businesses.
Coloradans are struggling right now as they deal with the disastrous
effects of Joe Biden's destructive economic policies. The policies
passed last Congress unleashed record inflation on Americans, which has
decimated our bank and retirement accounts, increased gas prices to
record levels, raised utility bills, drove up grocery costs, and made
it harder for Americans to live their lives as they intended.
This excessive spending has real consequences. American families will
pay an $8,581 inflation tax over the next year. Currently, 20 million
Americans cannot pay their electric bill. We have seen a 4.3 percent
decline in real wages since Biden took office. Americans have lost more
than $2 trillion in retirement savings. Americans are paying more for
everything because of leftwing extremist policies.
My amendment will allow House Republicans to conduct important
oversight over these expensive executive regulations to ensure Joe
Biden cannot continue to issue rules that send America into a deeper
inflation crisis.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment as
well as the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment requires the Comptroller General to include an
estimate of a rule's effect on inflation in the congressional review
report.
I oppose this amendment because it requires an estimate of a rule's
effect on inflation, which would require the Comptroller General to
speculate, based on limited evidence, how rules that likely have little
to do with the economy would affect inflation.
The GAO has already reported to Congress that they would be unable to
assess a rule's impact on the economy with the limited information
available, and in any case, the 15 days provided for major rule reports
do not allow for the GAO to make a determination on a rule's effect
even if they had the necessary information.
Adding more requirements for various officials to estimate a rule's
effect on the economy when they lack the necessary time and information
to provide a concrete answer will not heighten the efficacy of this
bill but will, rather, create more unnecessary estimates for Congress
to weigh in their review of agency rules.
In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has
previously noted that estimating the total cost of regulations is
inherently difficult and that such estimates of the cost of regulation
should be viewed with a great deal of caution. Like the OMB, CRS has
noted that there are significant methodological challenges to
estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules.
I oppose this amendment because it focuses only on the cost of
regulatory protections while completely ignoring the monetary benefits
of those critical rules and because it asks the Comptroller General to
do what is impossible to do.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a
report that looks into the spending that has been taking place for the
past 2 years and beyond.
This inflation is impacting millions of Americans across our Nation.
As I stated, American families will pay $8,581 in an inflation tax. We
should be looking into the impacts of the spending that is taking place
in Washington, D.C. Even if it is an estimate, we need to have an idea
of how this is impacting families and why we currently have

[[Page H2906]]

20 million families that cannot afford their utility bills and why we
have seen this 4.3 percent decline in real wages since Biden took
office. I would like to see that report.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
amendment No. 1.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is very nice to say that we should
examine the inflation that has occurred and the spending that has
occurred, but that is not what the amendment calls for.
The amendment requires the Comptroller General to include an estimate
of a rule's effect, a rule that presumably hasn't yet been issued, on
inflation in the congressional review report.
Now, I stated before why it is impossible to do that, why the CRS and
the OMB say that there are significant methodological challenges to
estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules.
Therefore, we shouldn't be asking the impossible. It certainly has
nothing to do with looking at prior expenditures or prior borrowing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 21, line 22, insert after ``submit a report'' the
following: ``(and publish the report on the website of the
Comptroller General)''.

{time} 1230

The GOP majority has been empowered to hold this administration
accountable and demand transparency by revealing just how much these
regulations are costing American families and small businesses.
Unnecessary government regulations and excessive red tape impose
crushing economic burdens on the people in my district and across our
great country.
Since Joe Biden took office, his administration and unchecked
bureaucrats are going full steam ahead on enacting a radical leftwing
agenda throughout unilateral executive action.
House Republicans should be working to cut wasteful spending, get to
the bottom of fraudulent payments made by the Federal Government,
support American energy production, and oppose tax increases proposed
by the Democrats.
Economic strength and job growth result from policies that unshackle
job creators, allow American ingenuity, and provide certainty.
My amendment ensures the legislative branch, and the American people
can provide proper oversight and no longer allow this administration to
go unchecked.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment as well as the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 12, insert after ``House of Congress'' the
following: ``(and to each committee of jurisdiction in each
House)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of my amendment, which will
require the Comptroller General's Congressional Review Report to be
made available to the congressional committees of jurisdiction.
This simple, good-governance amendment allows Congress to take back
its Article I authority in our system of checks and balances. This will
provide transparency for the administration to carry out its
congressionally authorized duty.
By requiring the administration to submit its plan to the people's
House, we can provide important oversight and provide feedback. It is
time for the legislative branch to actually do its job rather than
ceding all the power to the White House and bureaucrats.
Our Founders were determined to create a government whose branches
work together. By requiring the Comptroller General to submit the
Congressional Review Report to the congressional committees of
jurisdiction of the rule, we will allow Members who know these issues
best to examine the real-life impacts of these executive regulations.
Congress needs to take back its power and advocate for the American
people we represent. My amendment will ensure these voices do not go
unheard. Hold this administration accountable and ensure Biden's streak
of unchecked power comes to an end.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these amendments as well as
the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Biggs

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 17, line 13, strike ``$100 million'' and insert ``$50
million''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is needed to lower the economic threshold of the REINS
Act to $50 million, requiring congressional approval to go into effect.
That will lead to more votes in this body, and that is what we do.
We are Members of Congress. That is what we do as Representatives of
Congress, and I would rather vote more often than have unelected,
unaccountable, partisan agency heads writing rules that we treat as
law.
The Biden administration has abused executive authority by growing
the administrative state. These abuses add up, and estimates indicate
that the Biden administration has proposed more than $1 trillion in
rulemaking

[[Page H2907]]

proposals in 2022 alone. That is a trillion dollars without a single
vote of anybody in this body. My amendment will fix that.
Actions this large, like student loan forgiveness, food stamp
increases that nearly double in cost to Americans every 4 years--which
even outpaces inflation--for every one of these overreaches, there are
more smaller proposals that we never notice. I don't know if you
realize that ketchup is regulated--breads, buns, cheese, Asiago cheese
versus old Asiago cheese, that is what gets regulated by our
government. There is virtually nothing that is untouched in regulation
by this government.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, as I noted in our debate on the REINS Act last
night, the REINS Act is aimed at undermining and frustrating the
purpose of government by grinding Federal rulemaking to a halt.
By lowering the threshold of this dangerous bill from $100 million to
$50 million, this amendment would make the REINS Act even more
destructive.
I accordingly oppose this amendment for the same reasons I oppose the
REINS Act at large. By requiring Congress to vote to approve and for
the President to sign a resolution of approval for any major rule from
the executive branch, we will be putting our constituents in harm's
way.
Just last week, we saw how a small faction of far-right Republicans
can hold the legislative process in the House hostage, all to make a
point to the Speaker.
I oppose this amendment and the efforts of the majority to make the
functions of government more political and subject to the whims of
individual Members of Congress.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
When we start looking at the regulatory environment and you start
talking about a trillion dollars' worth of regulation being piled up by
the Biden administration, a trillion dollars, you wonder why there is a
persistence in inflation. That is one of the reasons.
I want to talk about something that my colleague said just a moment
ago. He said: If you constrain the bureaucracy from making rules,
somehow you are thwarting the purpose of government.
Mr. Chair, let me remind everyone what the purpose of government is.
The purpose of government is to protect the rights and liberty of the
American citizen. It is when you delegate from this body--who are
elected by the people we represent--to executive agencies and you give
them carte blanche, which is basically what we do, we rarely even do a
CRA, you are undermining that liberty, that freedom. That is one of the
most insidious problems of this runaway regulatory bureaucracy that we
have today.
My amendment simply says: If you are going to impact the United
States of America's economy by more than $50 million, we, the people's
Representatives, should be okaying that regulation that ostensibly is
going to be made and produced by people who are experts.
Well, let the people's Representatives adjudicate through a vote
whether we agree with the so-called experts, and then we will be the
ones who are held accountable, and we are the ones who should be held
accountable.
Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to vote for my amendment. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The central fallacy of the REINS Act that I noted last night is that
Congress can possibly legislate on all the things, on all the
regulations that we have. There are thousands of regulations, and there
must be for the safety of our people.
How many parts per billion of arsenic in the atmosphere are safe? Is
it 15? Is it 20? Is it 200? No one in this body has the expertise to
say that, but there are experts in the agencies who are trained to do
that.
How much exposure to radiation from x-rays is safe for an individual?
We are not competent to decide that. That is why Congress has delegated
over the years these decisions to agencies to make on our behalf. We
write the general law, and we delegate the general power to decide
these specific questions, and they do.
The central fallacy of the REINS Act is that it would make us try to
make decisions in all of this. That is bad enough. The REINS Act now
says you have to have Congress vote on every decision over $100
million. That is bad enough. This amendment would make it over $50
million, which makes it even worse.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment as I oppose the act, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Cloud of Texas
to offer amendment No. 5 to H.R. 277, the REINS Act.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, line 19, strike ``a classification of the rule as''
and insert ``a finding, rendered in consultation with the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, whether the
rule is''.
Page 2, beginning on line 20, strike ``classification'' and
insert ``finding''.
Page 17, line 10, insert after ``Management and Budget''
the following: ``or the Federal agency promulgating such
rule''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the REINS
Act, which is an important effort to ensure Congress reclaims its
rightful authority and responsibility to legislate.
This amendment is technical in nature, but it is important,
nonetheless. In April of this year, the Biden administration issued an
executive order on modernizing the regulatory review.
The purpose of this executive order is to allow the administration to
implement their agenda more quickly and efficiently.
The executive order also raises the threshold for centralized review
by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, from $150
million to $200 million.
The order also gives the administrator of OIRA a discretionary role
in determining which regulations are considered for full OIRA review.
OIRA serves as a responsible check on major regulations, reviewing
the cost and benefits of each regulation, and ensuring that all public
comments have been reviewed and considered before the regulation goes
into effect.

{time} 1245

OIRA, in other words, is a check on due diligence. This order will
mean that fewer rules are reviewed by OIRA and, thus, less due
diligence will be conducted over the administrative state.
So long as this executive order stands, a loophole will exist in the
REINS Act. Fewer rules would be classified as major, and consequently
would not be subject to congressional approval under the REINS Act.
My amendment would close this loophole by clarifying that OIRA must
issue a finding of the full cost-benefit analysis of each rule and
issue a determination as major or minor according to that finding.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

[[Page H2908]]

The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
has previously noted that estimating the total cost of regulations is
inherently difficult and that such estimates of the cost of regulation
should be viewed with a great deal of caution.
Like the OMB, CRS has noted that there are significant methodological
challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits
of rules.
I rise in opposition to this amendment as it requires the OMB to make
a specific determination of a rule's impact when they already say it is
difficult to make an estimate of the impact.
This amendment requires the OMB to do the impossible, to make a
specific finding when OMB and CRS have already said that even estimates
are very difficult and inherently unreliable. To request a finding is
to request the impossible, and, therefore, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague on the other side
of the aisle just confirmed why this amendment is necessary and why the
REINS Act is so important.
What I believe I heard him say is that because it is difficult for
the administration to determine what the cost of these regulations are,
they shouldn't have to make any determination at all and there should
be no oversight whatsoever, either from OIRA or OMB, because it is just
too doggone difficult to figure out how much these regulations are
going to cost.
Frankly, I find that argument absolutely and complete absurd. We are
talking about tax money. We are talking about a cost and expense that
is being imposed against our small businesses, our mom-and-pop
businesses, against our industry groups.
What the gentleman from the other side is saying is that nobody,
including this administration, should ever have to disclose what the
cost of those regulations are. That is exactly the reason as to why we
need a robust review by OIRA as provided for in this amendment.
Mr. Chair, in closing, I do think it is clear that it is important to
make this technical change for the REINS Act. It is important that we
have an understanding as to what the cost of these regulations will be.
The very purpose of the REINS Act is to ensure that Congress is part
of the legislative process for any regulation that would have an
economic impact of over $100 million.
Without a robust review by OIRA, it is not possible to determine
which of these regulations, in fact, would fit within that category. It
is for that reason that I request the adoption of this amendment. It is
a good one for the REINS Act, and it ensures that we close an important
loophole to make sure that it is the Congress that is legislating and
not the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I have expressed my opposition to the entire
REINS Act because, as I said before, we are not competent. Congress
cannot possibly decide how many parts per billion of arsenic is safe in
the air for people to breathe or how many rads of radiation are safe to
have in x-rays before it causes cancer. We don't know that. That is why
we write general laws, and in those laws, we have delegated the power
to make specific rules to agencies who are staffed by thousands of
experts in each particular field. That is why the REINS Act is so
pernicious, because it would stop this. It would make us make those
decisions. We have no competence to make those decisions.
The REINS Act is bad enough, but this amendment, which says that OIRA
must issue a finding for each rule determining whether the rule has a
significant economic impact, given that OMB and CRS have both said that
it is very difficult to make even estimates, you can't make a finding.
A finding implies exactitude. Given the fact that even the estimates
are very difficult and unreliable, a finding is impossible. The
amendment should not require that someone do the impossible. Therefore,
I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Good of Virginia

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Mr. Clyde
from Georgia.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, insert after line 7 the following:
``(D) If requested in writing by a member of Congress--
``(i) the Comptroller General shall make a determination
whether an agency action qualifies as a rule for purposes of
this chapter, and shall submit to Congress this determination
not later than 60 days after the date of the request; and
``(ii) the Comptroller General, in consultation with the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall make a
determination whether a rule is considered a major rule under
the provisions of this act, and shall submit to Congress this
determination not later than 90 days after the date of the
request.

For purposes of this section, a determination under this
subparagraph shall be deemed to be a report under
subparagraph (A).''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, again, I rise in support of the Mr.
Clyde's amendment to the REINS Act. This amendment simply says that if
requested in writing by a Member, the Comptroller General shall make a
determination whether an agency action qualifies as a rule for purposes
of this chapter and shall submit to Congress this determination not
later than 60 days after the date of the request.
It further states that the Comptroller General, in consultation with
the director of the Congressional Budget Office, shall make a
determination to whether a rule is a major rule under the provisions of
this act and shall submit to Congress this determination not later than
90 days after the date of the request.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Good).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 7, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 3, line 8, strike the period at the end and insert ``;
and''.
Page 3, insert after line 8 the following:
``(vi) a statement of the constitutional authority
authorizing the agency to make the rule.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzales) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my
amendment.
This amendment is simple. Any time a Federal agency proposes a new
rule, it must also submit a constitutional authority statement. This
would force any administration to remain in compliance with the most
sacred document in the American government, the U.S. Constitution.
Congress follows this simple principle every time a new bill is
submitted. The White House should be held to the same standard.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both of sides of the aisle to
support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales).
The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H2909]]

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Good of Virginia

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to
the REINS Act.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

``(a) Annual Review.--Beginning on the date that is 6
months after the date of enactment of this section and
annually thereafter for the 4 years following, each agency
shall designate not less than 20 percent of eligible rules
made by that agency for review, and shall submit a report
including each such eligible rule in the same manner as a
report under section 801(a)(1). Section 801, section 802, and
section 803 shall apply to each such rule, subject to
subsection (c) of this section. No eligible rule previously
designated may be designated again.
``(b) Sunset for Eligible Rules Not Extended.--Beginning
after the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of
this section, if Congress has not enacted a joint resolution
of approval for that eligible rule, that eligible rule shall
not continue in effect.
``(c) Approval of Rules.--
``(1) Unless Congress approves all eligible rules
designated by executive agencies for review within 90 days of
designation, they shall have no effect.
``(2) A single joint resolution of approval shall apply to
all eligible rules in a report designated for a year as
follows: `That Congress approves the rules submitted by
the___ for the year ___.' (The blank spaces being
appropriately filled in).
``(3) A member of either House may move that a separate
joint resolution be required for a specified rule.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `eligible
rule' means a rule that is in effect as of the date of
enactment of this section.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, my amendment is a commonsense one
that I hope everyone can support. It would simply require Congress to
do a review of all agency rules within a 5-year period. If Congress did
not vote to continue certain rules that are in place, then the rules
would simply cease to exist. It puts the responsibility where it
belongs, on the people's elected Representatives.
The Washington regulatory state we all know to be cumbersome. It is
actually hurtful to American businesses, families, and the American
economy. By reining in the regulatory state, we can allow Americans to
live and operate in an economy the way they want to. Washington
bureaucrats cannot and should not tell my constituents in Virginia's
Fifth District what they can and cannot do.
The REINS Act will hold the Biden administration accountable for all
major rules they present.
For far too long, Congress has let the executive branch run roughshod
over Congress and the American people. Today that ends.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Amendment and
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment is unnecessary. Congress
already has many ways to control agency rulemaking. We can delegate
authority to agencies with specificity, thus limiting the scope of an
agency's authority. We can impose restrictions on rulemaking through
appropriations. We can influence rulemaking through oversight
activities. If all of these measures fail, we also have the blunt tool
of the Congressional Review Act.
Therefore, we do not need the oversight the REINS Act offers, but we
also do not need to open the door to revising rules that have been in
place for years. Doing so would create uncertainty for businesses who
have adapted to rules that were passed years ago and continue in force.
The current Congressional Review Act only allows Congress to roll
back rules within a short time period. The CRA was drafted with a short
period of review intentionally, and to open the door to reviewing years
of rules would be a huge expansion of the CRA, and it would create too
much uncertainty for businesses and for all other economic actors.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, it is bad enough that we have
unelected bureaucrats in the departments and the agencies making rules
that oppress the American people, that suppress their freedom, that
tell them how they can live, how they can heat their home, what kind of
a car they can drive, and it goes on and on.
All this amendment does is require Congress to take responsibility
every 5 years to vote to retain a rule. If it is not worth voting on to
retain, then it probably should not be retained.
Once again, I would hope that all Members of Congress could agree to
operate under their constitutional responsibility for the laws that
affect their constituents and Americans across the country.
Mr. Chair, I encourage all Members to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman said that rules tell Americans
what kind of cars they can drive. No, they do not. They do provide for
the safety of the cars that Americans drive. They provide for all of
the safety mechanisms that must be in the cars.
Again, Congress does not have the competence to know what safety
mechanisms ought to be in the cars. That is why we have delegated
rulemaking authority to agencies which have experts on how many parts--
I keep using this example--how many parts per billion of arsenic can be
in the air, what safety measures must be in a car, et cetera.
The REINS Act violates this and is very dangerous to the American
people. This amendment makes it even worse by essentially saying every
rule has to be reviewed in 5 years by Congress. Congress can't possibly
review all of these rules.
Therefore, this amendment will make Americans even less safe in many
ways, and I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Good).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1300

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Good of Virginia

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 17, line 17, strike ``or'' at the end.
Page 17, line 22, strike the period at the end and insert
``; or''.
Page 17, insert after line 22 the following:
``(D) increased access to abortion, abortion-related
services, or abortion-related travel.''.
Page 18, line 12, insert after ``personnel'' the following:
``(except to the extent such rule is described in paragraph
(2)(D))''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, the REINS Act is a very important
piece of legislation for us to pass to rein in the unaccountable
bureaucratic state that is telling Americans what kind of cars they can
drive and much more than that with the regulations and rules that are
coming out of the unelected bureaucratic states.
Rules like the VA abortion rule that was recently put in place by the
Biden administration would not qualify as a major rule under the REINS
Act. My amendment would make any agency rule that increases access to
abortion subject to congressional review.
I am proud of this amendment because it is the first standalone pro-
life amendment vote the House will take this year. My amendment will
counter the radical, pro-death agenda the Biden administration promotes
throughout their entire administration.
The REINS Act will significantly restore appropriate and
constitutional

[[Page H2910]]

congressional oversight for the out-of-control bureaucracy. It is a
step toward ending the ``Washington knows best'' attitude that too
often prevails in this town. It is a step toward freedom and less
government oppression for all Americans. It is a step toward fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. Chair, in addition to the underlying bill, I urge all of my
colleagues to support my pro-life amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have a very clear difference of
perspectives here. The gentleman talks about the right to life. I talk
about the right to freedom. The right to reproductive freedom is a core
human right that is protected by our Constitution.
The majority of the work our agencies do has little to do with the
private decisions women make with the consultation of their doctors. In
an effort to continue the culture wars, my colleagues have added this
purposefully politicized amendment to signal that they, contrary to
their supposed beliefs, do think that Big Government is good and that
Big Government's reach extends to a woman's private decisions about
what to do with her body.
All the rhetoric about the REINS Act is that Big Government is bad,
that we should have less government. That is all the rhetoric of the
Republican Party, generally. Yet, here they are, saying that government
should reach into the private decisions of a woman with respect to her
own body that were made in consultation with her doctor or perhaps with
her husband or whomever. It is up to her, and government shouldn't
determine her decision for her.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and the Republicans' crusade to
create more laws about what we can do with our bodies and our
reproductive decisions because government should not be in the business
of dictating private decisions to private people.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is refreshing to hear for the
first time, I think, since I came to Congress 2\1/2\ years ago that my
friends on the other side actually care about the freedoms of
Americans, as they continue to try to control every aspect of
Americans' lives.
Yet, the other side used to be the party of ``safe, legal, and rare''
when it came to abortion. I am unashamedly, unapologetically a believer
in life from conception. I don't believe we ought to be negotiating the
timeline when it comes to when you can kill a child in the womb.
However, the other side has become the party of abortion at any time,
for any reason, up until the moment of birth. I challenge my friends on
the other side to tell us when they actually would restrict abortion.
The Republican Party should proudly be the party of life.
The Supreme Court, which recently, about a year ago, overturned Roe
v. Wade and the Dobbs decision, returned the responsibility on abortion
to the people's Representatives. It ought to be up to Congress to vote
to approve any agency rule that increases access to abortion. That is
what this amendment does.
Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party claims to be the party
of freedom, but not when it comes to women and the decisions they make
with respect to their own bodies. It is then the party of government
repression and dictation.
You cannot do what you decide to do. You cannot do what you think is
best. You must do what government thinks is best--namely, not have an
abortion.
I proudly support the right to abortion. I believe abortion should be
safe and legal. Whether it is rare is up to the individuals. It is a
personal freedom. The Democratic Party supports personal freedom,
unlike the Republican Party, which while claiming to support personal
freedom seeks to repress it.
They are a party that says you cannot decide what to do with your own
body, a party that says you cannot read what we don't want you to read,
a party that says: Let's ban books. Let's ban plays. Let's take them
out of the school libraries and out of the public libraries.
Some freedom.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. It is another example of the
Republican Party's attempt to suppress freedom, and it must not pass.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Good).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in
part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take
effect only beginning on the date that is 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, and only on the submission of
a report by the Comptroller General of the United States
detailing the effects of the implementation of this Act and
the amendments made by this Act.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and ranking
member of the full committee that has jurisdiction of these issues.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment.
This amendment delays the implementation of the legislation by 1 year
and requires that a study be conducted in time by GAO on the effects of
implementation.
We are making drastic changes, and drastic changes ought not be made
rapidly. We ought to give ourselves time to study these things so that
we can make prudent and judicious decisions.
A GAO study would provide us with the rigorous, unbiased analysis of
the likely impacts of the bill. It would examine the economic,
regulatory, and administrative implications of this new approval
process.
This amendment would help us to better understand how the shift might
affect industries, consumers especially, the economy, and the
government.
While the intent to improve regulatory oversight is laudable, we must
not rush into this. There should not be this rush to judgment as to the
implications without at least giving ourselves an opportunity to
examine them. We shouldn't do this without fully appreciating the
potential consequences.
Mr. Chair, I believe that this amendment, while simple, is something
that can be of great benefit, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment is simply an attempt to delay
implementation of a bill that the Democrats do not support. If the
Democrats don't like the bill, they can vote against it.
Even if implementation was delayed a year, it is unclear what, if
any, value a study could provide. However, during that year, agencies
would continue issuing more and more major rules at the expense of the
American public.
It is time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role as the
body that makes policy in this country.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, it is my belief that moving with
measured steps is not a delay. It is a judicious means by which we can
ascertain whether this drastic change--one might say a radical change--
will produce radical, unacceptable results.

[[Page H2911]]

Madam Chair, I think the amendment should be supported, and I ask my
colleagues to do so.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I just have a couple of points.
One is that the REINS Act has enjoyed longstanding, bipartisan
support. In fact, the House passed prior versions of the REINS Act with
bipartisan support in each one of the 115th, 114th, 113th, and 112th
Congresses. In other words, this is an act that has been studied and
discussed extensively over the years, and there is no reason for a 1-
year delay in its implementation once the bill passes.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon). The gentlewoman has the only
time remaining.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 4, line 21, strike ``or'' and insert a comma.
Page 4, line 23, after ``section 802'', insert ``as
provided for in the rule following failure to vote on a joint
resolution of approval as referred to subsection (b)(3)''.
Page 5, line 10, strike ``A major rule'' and insert the
following: ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), a major
rule''.
Page 5, insert after line 21 the following:
``(3) If either House of Congress has failed to vote on
passage of a joint resolution described in section 802
relating to a major rule by the end of 70 session days or
legislative days, as applicable, beginning on the date on
which the report referred to in subsection (a)(1)(A) is
received by Congress (excluding days either House of Congress
is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of
Congress), then the major rule shall take effect.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, the goal of this amendment is not to
undermine the power of congressional oversight. Rather, it is to
protect the functionality of government.
By providing a time-bound framework, we ensure that important
regulatory decisions are not left in limbo. That is exactly what can
happen without the benefit of this amendment. That is due to
legislative inertia.
Madam Chair, the Framers of our Constitution designed a government
that balances power between the branches. This amendment respects that
design by allowing for robust legislative review while also ensuring
that the executive branch can effectively administer and enforce our
laws.
However, let me be clear. While this amendment aims to improve the
proposed bill, I still remain fundamentally opposed to it because I
believe that the drastic changes that will take place will not serve to
benefit our legislative process.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1315

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment undermines the purpose of
the REINS Act. The REINS Act rejects a standard of legislative
disapproval concerning major rules. Instead, the REINS Act creates a
standard of legislative approval for major rules.
The fact is that in listening to my colleagues on the other side, it
is very clear that they simply do not want to legislate. They want to
turn over that authority to the executive branch in violation of
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
We don't believe in doing that. The fact is that the administrative
state has enacted unpopular and unwise regulations that could never
pass Congress, and that is why President Biden and his predecessors
have sought to legislate through regulation versus our constitutional
process.
If Congress does not approve a major rule, it should not go into
effect. This amendment would leave the status quo in place.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, this amendment is not designed to
delay but rather is designed to give us the opportunity to move forward
expeditiously. In fact, that is what has been the argument of the other
side that we should move expeditiously.
If expeditious movement is the choice of the other side, then they
should support this because it forces us to take that necessary action
as opposed to getting engaged in what has been called a paralysis of
analysis.
This a great opportunity for us to link arms, join hands, and cause
this legislation to move quickly. I think that this is what the
gentlewoman wants, it is what I want, and it is what we can produce.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
Again, this is just one more effort to try to undermine the very
purpose of the REINS Act and make it so that it would not work as it is
intended to work.
It is this body's responsibility to legislate, not the executive
branch, not unelected bureaucrats, and not administrative agencies. We
are the ones who represent the people of this country and are
accountable to them through the decisions that we make.
Madam Chair, I urge the opposition to this amendment as it would
undermine the very purpose of the REINS Act and is unnecessary, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part A of House Report 118-108.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 17, line 13, strike ``$100 million'' and insert ``$1
billion''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment
which would simply require Congress to approve by vote any regulation
with an economic impact over $1 billion rather than $100 million as the
current underlying bill is written.
Congress does have a responsibility to ensure that Federal dollars
are spent appropriately with congressional intent and oversight in
mind. Yet all of us in this Chamber know just how challenging it can be
to come to a consensus despite all of our best efforts, let alone to
find the time and the space on the calendar to do so.
Requiring a vote in both the House and the Senate on any regulation
with a price tag of $100 million will put in jeopardy consumer
protection, healthcare access, and environmental safety. We simply
cannot afford in good faith to have this threshold this low. The
American people cannot afford for the implementation of these items to
be stalled.

[[Page H2912]]

The rulemaking process is designed to implement laws that have
already passed Congress. However, the laws that we write and the
dollars we spend do, of course, have tangible impacts, which is why my
amendment would ensure that only the rules that are over $1 billion
would see a vote.
As a point of reference, during the Trump administration only 26 out
of 1,327 rules had a price tag of over $1 billion. Again, less than 2
percent of the Trump administration's 1,300 rules would, therefore,
require a vote under the new threshold. To drill down on the math, that
would mean less than 30 votes rather than 1,321 votes.
A little bit of back-of-the-envelope math for us: we here in the
House are in session between 27 and 30 weeks a year. I would say we do
20 votes a week which is generously around 600 votes a year; not nearly
close to the 1,321 votes that we would have had to have taken during
the Trump administration.
Again, I cannot stress enough that regulations do have an impact on
real people and American lives. They do ensure aircraft safety and food
quality, and they do prevent hazardous material from entering our air
and water. As a consequence and because of that, we cannot take
unnecessary risks by delaying these quantity of votes.
So, Madam Chair, for all of these reasons, I do urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to please vote ``yes'' on this, my commonsense
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I think this amendment perhaps defines the
incredible contrast between this side of the aisle and the folks on the
other side of the aisle.
I believe that $100 million is an astronomical amount of money, and
they don't see that it is all that much. I don't believe that unelected
bureaucrats in agencies ought to be making decisions that have impacts
on our businesses of over $100 million without any legislative
oversight, and they think that $1 billion is pretty low. I think that
that really epitomizes the difference in our philosophy, how we view
government, and how we view our responsibilities.
Under no circumstance should unelected bureaucrats in agencies be
imposing hidden taxes against the people of this country without the
accountability of the legislative branch being involved in the
decision. I believe $100 million is too high and $1 billion is
absolutely absurd.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chairwoman, while the estimate of the economic impact of any
rule by the GAO would be highly speculative and should be considered
with caution--as the GAO itself said--this rule would at least lessen
the harm that this dangerous bill would effect.
Although this amendment does not cure all the ills in the REINS Act,
the amendment would at least reduce the number of rules REINS would
apply to, and, therefore, I support the amendment.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I am ready to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I cannot stress enough that regulations
do, of course, have an impact on real American people and real American
lives. Once again, I will emphasize that they ensure aircraft safety
and food quality and prevent hazardous materials from entering our air
and our water. We cannot take unnecessary risks.
If there is one thing the last several months have taught us about
this body and the way that we move, is that we cannot move with
expedience and that we definitely take an enormous amount of time to
vote on any one piece of legislation.
The idea that we would be standing here week after week month after
month voting on thousands of bills in this way is really a
demonstration of the fact that we don't simply understand how this body
works.
So for that reason, I very much urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Again, Madam Chair, I am going to say I think that this
is clearly an effort to abdicate our responsibilities to legislate.
As far as protecting our air and water, I point out that the EPA is
responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in the history
of the United States of America when it blew out the Gold King Mine and
turned the Animus River yellow several years ago in southwestern
Colorado.
So while they want to turn over the responsibility of governing in
this country to unelected bureaucrats in agencies that cause those
kinds of disasters, I am unwilling to do so. I believe that this body
ought to be accountable to the people and in making the decisions that
have an economic impact of $100 million on their lives.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania will be postponed.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Joyce of Ohio

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 18, strike lines 1 through 16, and insert the
following:
``(4) The term `rule' has the meaning given such term in
section 551, except that such term--
``(A) includes interpretative rules, general statements of
policy, and all other agency guidance documents; and
``(B) does not include--
``(i) any rule of particular applicability, including a
rule that approves or prescribes for the future rates, wages,
prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate or
financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or
acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures
bearing on any of the foregoing;
``(ii) any rule relating to agency management or personnel;
or
``(iii) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to
H.R. 277, the REINS Act. My amendment would insert a key provision
included in my legislation, the LIBERTY Act, to ensure that
economically significant guidance documents are subject to public
notice and comment periods and much-needed congressional oversight.
While agency rules and regulations are subject to congressional
oversight, guidance documents are not. As a result, the President can
use guidance documents to sidestep congressional review and prevent
Americans from weighing in on decisions made by their government.
Guidance documents were never intended to be used by Presidents to
unilaterally enact their agenda, but today, that is precisely what we
are seeing. For example, President Biden has attempted to use guidance
documents to implement his $450 billion student loan bailout, Medicaid
expansion, and to make it easier to deny future natural gas pipelines.
As a result, it has become clear that Congress must exert its
authority to ensure that guidance documents cannot be used without any
review or accountability. My amendment would guarantee just that.
The principle underpinning this amendment is simple: our government
was founded by the people and for the

[[Page H2913]]

people, and duly elected Representatives must be able to hold the
executive branch to account.
No matter which party holds the White House, no President Republican
or Democrat should be able to implement their agenda without first
giving the American people the opportunity to weigh in on that agenda.
Madam Chair, that is why I ask that you support this amendment to
strengthen the REINS Act and to provide Washington with a much-needed
dose of transparency and accountability to the American people.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, this amendment amends the definition of rule
to include interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and all
other guidance documents.
However, guidance documents from agencies are not given the force of
law in court. Expanding this bill to also require any guidance the
agency gives to businesses about how the rules will be enforced is a
gross expansion of the Congressional Review Act and would ensure that
agencies provide less guidance for business thus creating more
uncertainty. More uncertainty in business stifles business.
Madam Chair, you want to know the environment you are operating in if
you are a businessperson.
This amendment is an overstep and would stifle further the work of
our agencies and would make it much more difficult to conduct business
in this country.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his
reply, and I appreciate his concern.
I would simply say this: all of us regardless of our political
affiliation should be invested in reining in the power of the executive
and holding the President accountable to the people. That is not
happening in the status quo, which is why my amendment and the
underlying bill is so important.
Guidance documents were never intended to allow bureaucrats to make
sweeping decisions without any oversight, but that is what they have
become.
Economically, significant guidance documents, like President Biden's
student loan bailout, will have major effects on our country and must
be subjected to proper oversight. That is what my amendment aims to
achieve: a commonsense, good governance reform that keeps the American
people in control of their government.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
Madam Chair, at the risk of sounding repetitive from what I have said
in several other amendments, Congress is not capable of making the
judgments--the thousands and millions of judgments--on specifics like
how many parts of arsenic per billion in the atmosphere is safe? What
should the tolerance of a braking system in the automobile be? How many
units of radiation can a person tolerate that is worth risking in an
MRI or a CAT scan?
That is why Congress has delegated to agencies, which we created, the
power to make these decisions which we are not competent to make, the
thousands and thousands of specific decisions on scientific and other
questions; mostly scientific questions.

{time} 1330

The REINS Act is a very bad piece of legislation because it would say
that the agencies can't do this, that Congress must do it, and we don't
have the capacity. We don't have the time, and we don't have the
knowledge.
How many people here know how many units of radiation are safe?
How many hearings must be conducted for the thousands or even
millions of decisions that must be made each year?
The REINS Act is a bad idea. This amendment, in effect, expands the
REINS Act to include interpretive rules and general statements of
policy. It makes it even more impossible. Therefore, it makes a very
bad bill worse, and I oppose it and urge its defeat.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 17, line 10, insert after ``and Budget'' the following
``determines makes reference to Executive Order 14091, 14075,
14035, 14021, 13988, or 13985, or''.
Page 18, line 12, insert after ``personnel'' the following:
``(except to the extent such rule makes reference to
Executive Order 14091, 14075, 14035, 14021, 13988, or
13985)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, it has been a treat listening to my colleagues
with their newfound respect for private business and not wanting to
have regulatory interference with private business.
Well, here we are talking about the REINS Act. What we are trying to
do is ensure that you can't have unelected bureaucrats making decisions
that have massive economic impacts and have major impacts on the lives
of the American people.
With all due respect to the ranking member from Judiciary, what we
are talking about is not saying you are ending what the folks in the
administrative state are saying about regulations. What we are saying
is that they have got to come to Congress if it is going to have a
major impact. They have got to come demonstrate what it is they are
proposing.
If they have got some issue that involves radiation, if they have got
some issue that involves some complexities, come make the case if you
are going to have a massive economic impact, like $100 million.
Here I am offering an amendment that goes a little bit beyond that;
not just the economic impact, but the impact on our society, the impact
on businesses to be able to function, the impact on people to be able
to go out and carry out their lives.
Amendment No. 14 that I am offering here expands the definition of a
major rule in the REINS Act to include any rule that references one of
President Biden's major so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion
executive orders.
This means that Congress would vote up or down on any rule
promulgated by the executive branch that pushes radical gender or
racial ideologies regardless of whether it is estimated to carry a
fiscal or economic impact.
Why? Because the American people are tired of this stuff. They are
tired of seeing this radical agenda being promoted by the Federal
Government and pressed upon the private citizens of this country.
The executive orders covered in this amendment are meant to sow
division among the American people in pursuit of radical racial and
gender ideologies. For example, Executive Order 13985 is designed to
ensure racial equity and support for underserved communities throughout
the Federal Government.
That sounds nice in a title, but the fact is, it has directed every
Federal agency to conduct equity assessments to determine whether new
policies, regulations, or guidance documents may be necessary to
advance equity in agency actions and programs. It has effectively made
diversity, equity, and inclusion one of the most important factors,
including at the Department of Defense.
We are not focusing on making sure our Department of Defense can
defeat China; we are focusing on making it a social engineering
experiment wrapped in a uniform. I wonder why we are having trouble
recruiting people.
It has been referenced that CMS rules on health equity flirt with
forcing providers to prioritize healthcare based on race. There are
news articles about this. It has been referenced that the EPA and the
Department of the Interior have rules that advance so-called
environmental justice. Executive Order 13988 is titled: ``Preventing
and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual
Orientation.'' Again, the title sounds, oh, that must be all nice and
good. Well, it led to an HHS proposed rule that could compel hospitals
receiving Federal funds to perform gender-affirming care, including
surgeries. It has been used to justify moves by the VA to provide

[[Page H2914]]

gender-affirming care to veterans on taxpayer dollars.
Executive Order 14021 is titled: ``Guaranteeing an Educational
Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including
Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.'' However, the problem is, it is
discriminating against women, which Riley Gaines knows all too well
because she was forced to swim against a dude, and we all know she was
forced to swim against a dude.
It was referenced in the Department of Education's proposed rule to
leverage Title IX to restrict schools' ability to prohibit biological
males from competing in girls' sports. Ironically, the rule recognizes
schools may need flexibility to issue such a restriction for ``fairness
in competition or preventing sports-related injury.''
The fact is, the American people are sick and tired of politicizing
our entire culture through the executive actions that are being
executed by this President without check from Congress, which we don't
believe would have a chance of getting through the people's House.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, the REINS Act would already frustrate the
point of government by grinding the critical actions of our agencies to
a halt.
Why, Mr. Roy--and I presume the majority generally--feels the need to
also include efforts to protect some of the most vulnerable among us is
beyond me.
America has a long history of discrimination, and efforts to include
these historically marginalized groups should be celebrated and
supported, not subjected to further scrutiny by Congress just because
the majority disagrees with supporting these individuals.
May I remind you that we represent all the people, and amendments
like this undermine our service to our constituents.
I would ask, why should we tell hospitals not to perform certain
medical procedures? If gender-affirming surgery is necessary for the
patient and the doctor says it is, why shouldn't the VA hospital
provide such surgery?
We do not, I presume, want to say it is because we want to
discriminate against transgender people, or we want to discriminate
against gay or lesbian people. I hope that is not what we are saying,
but that is what this amendment seems to do.
I oppose this amendment because it goes against our notions of
equality and our notions of fairness.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, if my Democratic colleagues support these
executive orders so much, if they believe that these are the best
things since sliced bread, that we need to have all of these orders
that are turning our entire society upside down, that are redefining
traditional roles in society that we understand the difference between
men and women; if they are so excited about those policies, then why
are they worried about voting on them? What is the problem?
Why must they just be executed by a faceless bureaucrat at the other
end of Pennsylvania Avenue or in the alphabet soup of agencies in this
town?
Why shouldn't this body, the people's House, and the Senate, speak?
That is all we are talking about in the REINS Act and these amendments.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, the gentleman says: Why don't we legislate
on some of this? We have.
Might I remind the gentleman that last year we passed the Respect for
Marriage Act, codifying the rights of two men to marry each other or
two women to marry each other because we respect freedom?
The amendment does not respect freedom. The amendment, by its
description by its sponsor, would say, no, we don't want to do gender-
affirming surgery. We don't want to perform surgery that people need
because we disapprove of them. That is wrong.
The REINS Act is a very bad act for all the reasons I have stated
many times already today. I am not going to repeat them. This amendment
would make it worse because diversity, equity, and inclusion executive
orders are things to be celebrated, not things to decry.
Madam Chair, I include in the Record a list of organizations opposing
H.R. 277.

Opposition to H.R. 277

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, consisting of over
160 labor, consumer, and environmental organizations,
including:
AFL-CIO
Alliance for Justice
American Association of University Professors
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Federation of Teachers
American Forum
American Lung Association
American Rivers
American Sustainable Business Council
Americans for Financial Reform
BlueGreen Alliance
Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR)
Center for American Progress
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Food Safety
Center for Foodborne Illness, Research & Prevention
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Progressive Reform
Center for Responsible Lending
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Reports
Demos
Earthjustice
Economic Policy Institute
Environment America
Farmworker Justice
Free Press
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
International Center for Technology Assessment
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
League of Conservation Voters
Main Street Alliance
Media Matters for America
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Consumers League
National Employment Law Project
National Family Farm Coalition
National Women's Health Network
National Women's Law Center
Natural Resources Defense Council
Partnership for Working Public Citizen
Reproductive Health Technologies Project
Sciencecorps
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club
STOP Foodborne Illness
The Arc of the United States
U.S. PIRG
Union of Concerned Scientists Union Plus
United Food and Commercial Workers Union
United Steelworkers
Voices for Progress
Waterkeeper Alliance
Worksafe
The Center for Progressive Reform; a coalition of health
partners including American Lung Association, Allergy &
Asthma Network, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practioners; and the
American Association of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part A of House Report 118-108.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 17, line 17, strike ``or'' at the end.
Page 17, line 22, strike the period at the end and insert
``; or''.
Page 17, insert after line 22 the following:
``(D) in an increase in mandatory vaccinations.''.
Page 18, line 12, insert after ``personnel'' the following:
``(except to the extent such rule is described in paragraph
(2)(D))''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, with respect to what the gentleman was just
talking about with the marriage vote last year, regardless of one's
belief and vote on the outcome of that policy, the point is, Congress
voted.
The fact is, here we have rules being promulgated by bureaucrats that
the people's House never gets a chance to speak to other than through a
Congressional Review Act, which you are only allowed to do in a minimal
amount of time. The REINS Act actually gives power to the people's
House and Article I under the Constitution.
I want to do that here on another issue.
We would like to expand the definition of ``major rule'' to include
any rule likely to result in an increase in mandatory vaccinations.
This means Congress would vote to approve any rule promulgated by the
executive branch to push mandatory vaccines.
Last Congress, remember, we were told to wait for the courts to save
the American people from an unconstitutional vaccine? While we fiddled
and waited for the courts to catch up, millions of Americans were
forced to choose between their job and a jab, that they likely didn't
need and that didn't stop transmission.

[[Page H2915]]

On September 29, 2021, President Biden announced vaccine mandates for
upwards of 100 million Americans, forcing Americans to choose between
their jobs and a jab.
On March 11, 2023, Biden finally ended his unconstitutional vaccine
mandates at the end of the COVID emergency, frankly, because we were
forcing it and forcing the question.
The OSHA mandate, which was struck down by the Supreme Court and
formally withdrawn on January 28, 2022, a year prior, required all
businesses with 100-plus employees to either vaccine or test.
Why should we wait on the Supreme Court to check the
unconstitutional, unlawful, and tyrannical actions by an executive
branch that shut down the greatest economy in the history of the world,
forcing people to choose between their livelihoods, their ability to
make money, their families, their ability to go to school, the ability
of a nurse to be able to go in and perform her job in a hospital? We
did that. Let's not forget that we did that.
We watched Secretary Becerra fumbling yesterday, fumbling in a
hearing, unable to answer the question: Can you tell me, sir, whether
or not it was any benefit whatsoever for 2-year-old kids to be forced
to wear masks and we had mandates through the Head Start program? He
refused to answer the question in committee because he knew full well
he had no good answer to that question.
He knows it, and everybody in America knows it. This is about
wrestling power away from a bureaucratic state that shut down this
economy, harmed the American people, and it should never happen again.
That is the point of the REINS Act, to wrestle power back from
Article II and the executive branch no matter who is there.
The Trump administration's hands: Unclean.
The Biden administration's hands: Unclean.
This is a nonpartisan statement.
The people's House should speak. We should stand up to the tyranny of
an executive branch that overstepped its bounds and restricted the
freedom and liberties of the American people and harmed them.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1345

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, yet again, we have another amendment aimed
at dividing us instead of allowing us to serve the people who elected
us.
Vaccinations help us eradicate terrible diseases, like smallpox,
polio, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, rubella, and on and on and on.
Adding this amendment would not help us govern. It will not help us
serve our constituents. Instead, it would just serve to undermine
necessary health and safety rules.
We here in this Chamber cannot know what contagious diseases we may
face in the future, and I oppose any amendment that would undermine our
ability to protect our constituents.
Madam Chair, before I was allowed to go to school--I won't tell you
how many years ago that was--I had to be vaccinated for diphtheria, for
whopping cough, for the diseases that they then knew how to vaccinate
against. Nothing has changed. We are to vaccinate people to prevent
diseases and pandemics.
The fact of the matter is that people should be required to be
vaccinated, especially a nurse, a nurse who is dealing with patients,
who is breathing on those patients. She can transmit the disease. So
certainly, she should be required to be vaccinated because the
vaccination not only protects her, but it also protects against
transmission of the disease to the next person. The healthcare worker
certainly ought to be required to be vaccinated.
When we have a pandemic like the COVID-19 pandemic that we had, 2-
year-olds should have been required to wear masks. It would be child
abuse for parents not to do that because there was no vaccination
available for 2-year-olds. The only way to protect them against COVID
was to have them wear masks. These mandates are meant to protect the
public's health and safety.
God willing we won't have another pandemic such as we had, but in the
future, we will be required, I presume, to be vaccinated against major
threatening diseases. That is right. To expand the major rule to
include any increase in mandatory vaccinations is intended to prevent
mandatory vaccinations. That is a crime against the public health.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, well, I am tempted to yield all my time to the
gentleman from New York because he is basically making the case for me
more effectively than I can.
The gentleman from New York is basically acknowledging everything
that I am here saying that I am trying to do to protect the American
people from the tyrannical state of the executive branch, but in this
case, my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I want everybody in America to understand what they just heard from
the ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary in the
United States House of Representatives.
Your 2-year-old should be forced to be masked.
That is what the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee just
said here on the floor of the House of Representatives, that the power
of the government, the full power of the Federal Government should be a
part of ensuring and forcing your children, your 2-year-old child to be
masked.
We heard it yesterday when the Secretary of HHS refused to actually
answer that question, so I am really glad to hear that the ranking
member of the House Committee on the Judiciary acknowledges what
everybody in America understands, which is that the Democratic Party
led by the President and by my Democratic colleagues in the House and
the Senate are fully comfortable with the power of the government being
used to shut down your businesses, force you out of work, unless you
take an experimental vaccine that has not been proven to actually do
what the gentleman just said, which is with respect to transmissions.
More importantly, my father, who is 80 years old, is dealing with the
ravages of polio. I firmly understand the importance of vaccines, and I
am proud that my children and I have been able to be protected by those
vaccines, fully tested after years of testing.
To say that this politicized vaccine should have been used to shut
down the economy and to kill the ability of my constituents to be able
to go about their lives, and to force children into the corner wearing
masks to get set back years in their education, that is precisely why
this amendment matters. It is precisely why we are here reining in the
Federal Government, and it is precisely why this amendment would make
this a better piece of legislation, and why I hope my colleagues would
support it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, why the COVID-19 vaccine should be more
politicized than any other vaccine, I don't know. I don't understand
that.
And why the COVID-19 vaccine is considered by the gentleman to be
politicized, I don't understand that either.
It is just another vaccine. It is another vaccine for a very raging
pandemic we just had and which is hopefully over--although people are
still dying of COVID-19. People should get vaccinated against it, if
they haven't been vaccinated.
But the REINS Act would make it much more difficult to require or
even to drop the requirement for vaccination, and this amendment would
specifically make it more difficult.
That is ridiculous from a public health point of view, therefore, I
oppose the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H2916]]

the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Mr. ROY. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Waltz) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, 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.

____________________