[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)''.

  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 my amendment, which will require the Comptroller 
General to publish the GAO study of rules on its website.
  My simple, straightforward amendment ensures that the American people 
will be better informed of the regulations unelected bureaucrats are 
imposing on them, costing as much as $2 trillion in compliance costs 
and economic losses.
  During the first year of this administration, the Biden White House 
added more than $200 billion in new regulatory costs. Without my 
amendment, the real-life consequences of Joe Biden's leftwing agenda 
will not be seen by those impacted most.
  This will provide transparency for the administration to answer to 
the American people.
  While the Federal Government continues to spend trillions of dollars 
it doesn't have, inflation has hit a 40-year high. Everything we buy, 
including food, gasoline, and so much more, costs more.
  Instead of addressing these major economic concerns head-on, the 
Democrats' solution is to keep imposing unnecessary regulations and 
spending money we do not have.

                              {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.

                          ____________________