[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18997-19004]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 
        IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2011, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call

[[Page 18998]]

up House Resolution 479 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 479

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 10) 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. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of 
     further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the 
     bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a 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 in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During any recess or adjournment of not more than 
     three days, if in the opinion of the Speaker the public 
     interest so warrants, then the Speaker or his designee, after 
     consultation with the Minority Leader, may reconvene the 
     House at a time other than that previously appointed, within 
     the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
     Constitution, and notify Members accordingly.
       Sec. 3.  Clause 3 of rule XXIX shall apply to the 
     availability requirements for a conference report and the 
     accompanying joint statement under clause 8(a)(1) of rule 
     XXII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, H. 
Res. 479. H. Res. 479 provides for a structured rule so that the House 
may consider H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Scrutiny Act.
  The rule gives the House the opportunity to debate a wide array of 
important, germane amendments offered by Members from both sides of the 
aisle. Better known as the REINS Act, the underlying legislation is a 
pivotal bill that would change the very way Washington does business.
  The REINS Act takes a step back and looks at our current regulatory 
process, where Congress passes broad, general laws and then lets the 
executive branch interpret and regulate them however they see fit. H.R. 
10 brings us back to the vision that our Founding Fathers had for this 
Nation and for the institution of Congress. It would ensure that our 
three branches are coequals, the way they were designed to be. H.R. 10 
would hold Congress accountable for setting America's regulatory 
policies. It makes Congress do the work that our Founders intended this 
institution, the first branch, to do: to regulate.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that regulations have been a buzz word up here in 
Congress recently, and I think it has become so popular, so frequently 
discussed because people within the Washington Beltway are finally 
starting to wake up to the fact that those in my home State of Florida 
have been telling me since before I ever came here: that regulations 
matter. The government can't really do much to actually create jobs or 
to physically put people back to work. We might wish it were so, but we 
don't have the magic job formulas on either side of the aisle that we 
can use to suddenly create millions of jobs for the nearly 9 percent of 
Americans who are currently out of work. What we can do is create an 
environment where real job creators--small businesses and private 
companies--can gain access to capital and operate with as much 
regulatory certainty as possible.
  Unfortunately, it's hard to create such an environment when the 
executive branch is constantly churning out one major regulation after 
another. According to the Congressional Research Service, during his 
first 2 years in office, Federal agencies under the leadership of the 
Obama administration published over 175 major rules. These regulations 
impose tens of billions of dollars annually on our economy and on 
consumers. This is on top of the continuing burden of redtape that we 
are already up against, which the Small Business Administration 
estimates to cost $1.75 trillion--$1.75 trillion--yearly.
  The Federal Register is sort of like the daily newspaper of the 
Federal Government. It holds all Federal agency regulations, proposed 
rules and public notices, Executive orders, proclamations, and other 
Presidential documents.
  According to the National Archives' Web site, you should read the 
Federal Register if, among other things, your business is regulated by 
the Federal Government; if you're an attorney; if your organization 
attends public hearings; if you apply for grants; if you're concerned 
with government actions that affect the environment, health care, 
financial services, exports, education, and other major policy issues. 
Reading this recommendation, it sounds to me like they're saying if 
you're an active and informed member of the American public, you need 
to know what's in the Federal Register.
  What they don't mention is that the complete Federal Register is 
72,820 pages long. That's over 145 reams of paper that contain 
regulations. To help put it in perspective, that's 725 pounds of paper. 
And for my Floridian friends, that's about three Josh Freemans, the 
quarterback for the Tampa Bay Bucs.
  Within these 73,000 pages of regulations are regulations that result 
in 120 million hours of paperwork burdens for United States businesses 
every year. The 2011 Federal Register, the rules that are contained 
within, cost American employers $93 billion in compliance costs, which 
equals about 1.8 million jobs.
  Think about everything that job creators could do instead of spending 
hundreds of millions of hours filling out paperwork for the Federal 
Government, all of the jobs that could be created if they weren't 
spending money complying with regulations that Congress hasn't even put 
on them, but regulatory agencies have.
  H.R. 10 really does ``rein'' in these burdens. Instead of letting the 
White House decide what the regulations should be, only allowing 
Congress to disapprove an executive's action, H.R. 10 flips the current 
system on its head.

                              {time}  1240

  The REINS Act says if the executive branch wants to impose a major 
rule, a rule that's going to cost $100 million or more, then Congress, 
this body, needs to approve that rule before it has the force of law.
  In 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service, executive

[[Page 18999]]

agencies published over 100 major rules. These basically are rules that 
went into effect simply because the President said it was so. The REINS 
Act says: no more.
  Now, once the executive branch issues a rule, Congress needs to 
approve it, otherwise it never takes effect. It's stunning that 
something so simple, that Congress should make the laws, can be so 
contentious.
  I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say if 
Congress just wrote better, more precise laws, the Executive wouldn't 
need to regulate through these rules. The problem is that sometimes the 
executive branch agencies have shown they're using their regulatory 
powers to circumvent the legislative process.
  For example, after it was clear the Senate wasn't going to pass cap-
and-trade, which really ought to be called cap-and-tax, the EPA just 
went ahead and started regulating greenhouse gases through the 
rulemaking process, cutting Congress out of the process altogether. 
This year's most expensive rule, the greenhouse gas/CAFE standards, is 
estimated to cost $141 billion. That's greater than the entire GDP 
growth for the United States in the first quarter of 2011.
  We're not all constitutional scholars. I'm certainly not. But if one 
thing is clear, Congress is the one who makes the laws. It's not that 
Congress makes the laws unless they don't make the laws the President 
wants them to make. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Scrutiny Act brings us back to the basic foundation of our government. 
It says that not only does Congress provide the legislative intent, but 
it also provides the legislative oversight as the rule comes back if 
it's a major rule that's going to cost over $100 million to our 
businesses and citizens of this country.
  That's what we're designed to do, to make tough decisions. That's why 
I'm so proud to cosponsor this bill. It's why I'm proud to sponsor this 
rule, and it's why I'm proud to vote for both the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there's a very dangerous and cynical game being played 
in the House. Americans need jobs now; and instead of spending our time 
on job creation, the majority continues to waste time focusing on bills 
like this one that make it easier for polluters to spoil our air and 
water; make it easier for big banks to take the kind of risk that 
brought on our recession; and make it easier for unsafe products from 
China to poison our children.
  The majority seems to think if they repeat their message that Big 
Government is destroying jobs enough times, it will become true. But 
economic surveys and economists from the left, right, and center say 
it's all a made-up argument. Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked in 
the Reagan and first Bush administrations, writes that ``regulatory 
uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use 
current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business 
community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of 
political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high 
unemployment.''
  My friends on the other side of the aisle know this bill won't create 
jobs. And here's how we know. When the bill is considered for 
amendment, they will block an amendment that simply says if the 
independent experts conclude a rule will create jobs, it can go into 
effect without all these time-consuming extra steps. Why would we want 
to slow down a rule that could create tens of thousands of jobs? If 
this bill will create jobs, like the majority claims, what's the harm 
in saying the bill does not apply when it conflicts with the important 
goal of creating more jobs for Americans who are out of work? The 
majority cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
  It has now been a full 336 days since Republicans took control of the 
House, and they have yet to put a real jobs bill on the floor. But as 
of today, they've made time for 23 bills that would roll back 
protections for public health and safety. They provided ample floor 
time to de-fund public radio; to make it easier for felons to carry 
concealed weapons; and to reaffirm our national motto, which did not 
need reaffirming; and, of course, did we want to micromanage light 
bulbs. Why? Does the majority really think these are pressing national 
issues that demand our attention when we should focus on jobs?
  There's no doubt in my mind that in addition to making our workplace, 
food, water, and airplanes less safe, H.R. 10 would endanger our 
fragile economic recovery, impeding job creation. Having the right 
amount of safeguards against bad behavior is part of what has made this 
country so economically successful. We all know it was only after the 
financial sector was deregulated so much that we had a catastrophic 
housing crisis and the recession. Indeed, what regulation there was 
basically looked the other way. Indeed, in 2008 the Bush administration 
itself estimated that benefits to the economy for major rules 
outweighed the cost by at least 2\1/2\ to 1. Possibly as much as 12 to 
1, they said.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not explain the violence this 
bill does to the process of passing the laws, the process executing the 
laws, and the important constitutional principle of separation of 
powers. The practical result of this bill's new, additional steps in 
the regulatory process would be to grind the wheels of government to a 
halt.
  Our system of government already has checks and balances built in to 
make sure that the regulations do what Congress says they should. That 
is why we have oversight committees. After Congress writes the laws, 
there are numerous statutes and executive orders that ensure an open 
process as an agency writes the regulations, requiring them to listen 
to the stakeholders and the public, to conduct cost-benefit analyses, 
and justify every aspect of the proposed rule. Congress also 
continuously keeps an eye on the executive branch by exercising its 
authorization, appropriation, and oversight functions. Furthermore, 
entities whose activities are regulated have access to the courts.
  When Congress last considered a nearly identical bill in the 1980s, 
now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who was then an associate White House 
counsel in the Reagan administration, criticized the legislation for 
``hobbling agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional 
assent to all major rules.'' He said that such a requirement ``would 
seem to impose excessive burdens on regulatory agencies.''
  Justice Roberts was right then, and he's right today. Congress writes 
the laws. We rely on professionals and experts--doctors, engineers, 
microbiologists, statisticians, and so forth--to spell out the details 
of those policies so the law can be implemented and enforced in a way 
that makes sense.
  If this bill is enacted, those decisions will instead be made by 
Members of Congress with no or little expertise in what they're talking 
about. In addition, with the staffs we now have, it would be an 
impossibility for us to able to do it. Americans are sick of Congress's 
political gamesmanship. The last thing they want to do is extend its 
reach into vast new areas of our government.
  But the Rules Committee's primary responsibility in relation to H.R. 
10 is to ensure the integrity of the legislative process in the House. 
In sending H.R. 10 to the House floor, the committee failed its 
responsibility. The sheer volume of additional measures the House and 
Senate would be required to consider should H.R. 10 become law is 
enough to force Congress to come back into the Capitol and work in 
shifts. Otherwise, we would never get it all done.
  Even though President Obama's administration has promulgated new 
rules at a slower rate than the Bush administration did in his last 2 
years, the 100 or so new major bills on our schedule would mean we 
would have to take

[[Page 19000]]

up seven of them a day on every other Thursday just to try to get it 
done. Inevitably, we could not finish it all; and under this ridiculous 
bill, it means we would vote on the rest without debate.

                              {time}  1250

  If the Rules Committee had bothered to hold any hearings on the bill, 
maybe the majority would realize how drastically H.R. 10 undermines the 
deliberative process in this House.
  Finally, I want my colleagues to know that this rule deems passage of 
a nongermane amendment that was written by Mr. Ryan, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee. The Republicans made an embarrassing discovery at 
the Rules Committee last week. They realized that the hundreds of new 
measures the House will consider under this bill would actually violate 
both their new CutGo rule and the pay-as-you-go statute that Democrats 
put in place. So the Republicans had a choice: they could either 
violate the budget rules a hundred times every year or just pass an 
amendment to make these embarrassing violations vanish. Which one do 
you guess they chose?
  This rule includes a magic amendment that makes all the budget 
violations go away in a big ``poof.'' But here's the best part: They're 
using the famous deem-and-pass procedure, which means the mystery 
amendment will be automatically adopted and the House will never vote 
on the Ryan amendment.
  I guess after all we've seen this year, it should not surprise me 
that last Tuesday the majority blocked our amendment to strip the 
special tax breaks from big oil companies supposedly because it was 
nongermane. That was Tuesday. On Thursday, they just ignored the 
germaneness rule for this budget amendment.
  But, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we've had 336 days of Republican 
control of the House with no jobs agenda. It is imperative that we 
extend the payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits before 
Congress leaves Washington for the holidays. That is why I will amend 
this rule to require those votes if we defeat the previous question.
  So I'm urging my colleagues on the other side, please stop worrying 
about your campaign message and start getting the message: America's 
top priority is job creation.
  Let's defeat this restrictive rule and get back to work on jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I am in favor of 
the underlying bill and the rule.
  When I talk to small business owners in my district in western North 
Carolina, I hear very clearly that regulations and regulatory 
uncertainty is in fact costing jobs. It's costing our economy, and it's 
making sure that unemployment remains high, which is an absurd policy 
coming out of Washington.
  Well, I know from my small business owners that regulations cost 
jobs. Even the Small Business Administration here in Washington, D.C., 
says that Federal regulations cost $1.75 trillion per year. That costs 
our economy, and that is a major impact on our job creators. We know 
that regulations cost jobs.
  Now, some politicians in Washington that don't understand business 
think that their regulations create jobs. Well, they're right; they 
create Federal jobs. They create more government employees. They create 
more people creating more paperwork for those who are trying to move 
our economy forward. We need to relieve our small businesses of this 
regulatory hurdle and the challenges that they face.
  The Obama administration admitted 1 year ago at this time that they 
had over 4,000 regulations that they were trying to put in place 
actively. Over 200 of these regulations cost $100 million or more on 
the economy, seven of which will cost $1 billion, a negative impact of 
$1 billion. These regulations, even the Obama administration admits, 
cost the economy money. And if they cost the economy money, they're 
costing jobs.
  This is the wrong approach, this regulatory approach. What we need to 
say is, if politicians in Washington think these regulations are in 
fact good, they need to proactively vote on them.
  When I go home and talk to small business owners, they wonder how 
these regulations actually go into place. It's faceless bureaucrats 
working behind desks in Washington that put them in place. Their 
elected officials here in Washington may be able to go home and say 
they're against them, but they've never had to cast a vote.
  What the REINS Act does is say that the elected officials that come 
to Washington to represent their folks at home need to proactively put 
their stamp of approval or disapproval on these regulations. That way 
we can get this economy going again. That's what we need to be about.
  I hope that we can have bipartisan support on this very important 
piece of legislation, the REINS Act. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this Republican leadership is starting to 
make me envious of the people of ancient Rome, because although Nero 
only fiddled while Rome burned, at least he did something. House 
Republicans, on the other hand, have brought yet another piece of 
legislation to this floor that will do absolutely nothing, not a thing, 
to address the number one issue facing our country--jobs.
  Millions of Americans, through no fault of their own, cannot find 
work. That means millions of families are struggling to pay their 
bills, keep their homes, and put enough food on the table. And instead 
of facing this problem head on, Republicans here in Washington are 
turning a blind eye to the needs of our neighbors.
  You would think that with all the recesses we take around here these 
days my Republican friends would hear from their constituents about the 
still struggling economy. I know that's what I hear about from the 
people of Massachusetts.
  There are two things that we can and must do before we break for yet 
another holiday recess: extend the payroll tax cut and extend 
unemployment insurance. By refusing to bring the payroll tax cut to the 
floor, the Republicans are risking tax relief for 160 million Americans 
while protecting massive tax cuts for 300,000 people making more than 
$1 million per year.
  Extending and expanding the payroll tax cut would put $1,500 into the 
pockets of the typical middle class family. Hundreds of thousands of 
jobs are at risk. Even Mitt Romney has come out in support of extending 
the payroll tax cut. If he can take a position, Mr. Speaker, I would 
hope that the House Republicans could do the same. And every dollar 
invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of $1.52 in economic 
growth. Again, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk unless we act.
  So instead of those simple, effective measures to improve our economy 
and spur job creation, we have before us yet another waste of time. It 
is time to put the people of this country first. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this rule, and I urge them to vote against the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House should listen to 
the voices that have been raised about the jobs crisis in our country. 
These voices are speaking loud and clear.
  We should also listen to the quiet voices of desperation of so many 
Americans who will sit down this Friday night to try to pay their bills 
and find they have 70 cents worth of income for every dollar's worth of 
bills that they have. Or the Americans who retired a few years ago and 
thought that they were set for the rest of their lives but are now 
looking at the want ads every day because they think they have to get a 
job to continue to pay their bills in their retirement. Or the quiet, 
anxious voices of small business owners

[[Page 19001]]

who are thinking that maybe this Friday will be the last Friday they 
keep their business open and they shut for good.
  These are the voices that should be heard in this country, and 
they're not being heard by this majority.
  Eighty-nine days ago, the President of the United States came to this 
Chamber and proposed four good ideas to put Americans back to work:
  Build more roads and bridges and schools to put construction workers 
back to work--we haven't taken a vote on that;
  Cut taxes of small business people that hire people in the private 
sector--we haven't had time to take a vote on that;
  Take teachers and police officers and fire fighters who have been 
taken off the job because of this economic disaster at the State and 
local level and put them back in the classroom, put them back on the 
job--the majority hasn't had time to vote on that; and, finally,
  Let's avoid a tax increase of $1,000 a year or more on middle class 
families that's coming January 1, in 25 days, January 1--but the 
majority hasn't had time to vote on that.
  We do have time today to vote on the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeship 
Extension Act of 2011. This is entirely appropriate. Bankruptcy judges 
are very busy in America today because when small businesses don't have 
customers and customers don't have money in their pocket and people 
don't have jobs to pay their bills, bankruptcy judges are very, very 
busy.

                              {time}  1300

  It is one thing for the majority to oppose these ideas the President 
brought here 89 days ago--that's their prerogative and their right--but 
it's quite another to refuse to even put these ideas up for a vote.
  So I would say, Mr. Speaker, to all of our colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, let's take this moment. Let's take this bill, let's take 
this day to put on the floor of the House legislation that would 
postpone and cancel the tax increase on middle class Americans that's 
due in 25 days.
  Let's not have it. And let's extend jobless benefits for those who 
are diligently trying to find a job in this difficult economy. Let's 
find time to do something for the American people today.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, while this body wastes its time debating 
yet another bill that does nothing to create jobs or help the middle 
class, the American people are looking for action from us. We need to 
stop supporting handouts for wealthy corporations and pass an extension 
of the payroll tax and unemployment benefits immediately.
  Despite saying for months, if not years, that tax cuts are their most 
important priority, the majority has failed to act on a critical 
extension of the payroll tax, even though it would save the average 
American family $1,500 a year; 400,000 jobs will be lost if we do not 
pass this payroll tax extension.
  The majority has also failed to act on extending unemployment 
insurance benefits, even though UI has kept 900,000 kids out of poverty 
last year. In fact, the number of Americans in poverty would have 
doubled last year if the unemployment insurance benefits had not been 
extended. And at least 200,000 jobs will be lost if the majority blocks 
an extension of benefits.
  But instead of acting on these two important priorities, what does 
the Republican majority spend its time on?
  We have seen them protect wasteful tax breaks for corporate jet and 
race horse owners, corporate subsidies for Big Agriculture, Big Oil, 
special tax treatment for Wall Street millionaires and billionaires, 
and now this misguided bill, which would undermine our regulatory 
system to the detriment of everything from food safety to protecting 
the environment without doing anything to create jobs.
  Time and again, the majority has shown that they will go to any 
lengths to side with the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, while 
turning their backs on middle class and working families.
  To take one more example, this past week Democrats introduced a 
payroll tax cut for 160 million people, offset by raising taxes on 
350,000 millionaires. But the Republican majority instead put forward a 
package that would slash the Federal workforce, raise Medicare 
premiums, curtail the social safety nets.
  Instead of just having America's wealthiest families pay their fair 
share of taxes, the majority would rather see more lost public jobs and 
less support for middle class families, all in order to continue a tax 
cut that independent economists agree is critical for our economy.
  Keep in mind the Republican mantra in recent memory has always been 
that tax cuts never, never need to be offset. And a year ago they said 
the same of a payroll tax cut. They've now changed their tune.
  American families deserve better leadership than this. Right now, 
Congress should be doing everything in its power to create jobs, 
rebuild our schools and infrastructure, support our small businesses, 
get our economy moving again. That means passing an extension and 
expansion of the payroll tax cut; that means passing an extension of 
the unemployment insurance benefits.
  Working to create jobs, that's our job. We do not have the luxury to 
waste America's time catering to the wealthiest interests in our 
society and considering ill-conceived bills such as this one.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  I am really confused. I know that many of my Republican colleagues 
have signed a pledge that said that never will they raise taxes on 
anybody, the Grover Norquist pledge. I think it's a silly idea to sign 
such a thing, but most have done that.
  Yet it does seem that when it comes to middle class tax cuts, there's 
this little hesitation going on. Do we really mean cutting taxes for 
the middle class? Do we mean preserving tax cuts for the middle class? 
Or are we just talking about the wealthiest Americans?
  Right now, if we don't move ahead with extending the payroll tax cut, 
that's what most, that's what all working families pay, their payroll 
taxes. You know, we hear, oh, the wealthy, that the wealthy are paying 
all the income taxes. Yeah, most people would like to pay income taxes. 
But they definitely pay payroll taxes if they're working. And they're 
risking 160 million Americans who would not get tax relief if we don't 
extend the payroll tax cut for working families.
  So we need to do that before we leave. But, instead, we're talking 
about some way to stop any kind of regulations, further health and 
safety regulations, making it hard to do that.
  I got a letter from someone talking about the unemployment insurance 
and extending those benefits. He says, this is from John, in my 
district: ``I'm a Desert Storm Veteran and lost my job October 21, 
2010. I've been drawing unemployment and am now on extended 
unemployment benefits. I, like millions of Americans, would rather be 
working 80 hours a week if possible. The job market is scary, but 
what's worse is the thought that we might be without that last bit of a 
safety net come the end of December.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to yield my colleague an additional 
minute.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. John continued: ``These benefits for many is the 
difference between having a roof over your head and living on the 
streets.''
  He says: ``I just hope you can encourage your fellow House Members to 
put the livelihood of millions of Americans above their petty 
politics.''

[[Page 19002]]

  Above the petty politics. That's what we're facing right now. If we 
extend unemployment insurance benefits, it's not just good for John and 
his family; it's not just good for the hundreds of thousands of people 
that would lose their unemployment benefits over 500,000 in January. It 
is also good for the economy. Every dollar generates a $1.52 in 
economic activity in the country.
  These are the things that the American people at this holiday season 
are worrying about, are afraid of. He calls it scary. He's afraid. And 
we're dealing with this pettiness right now. Let's get over it and on 
with the business of the people.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow Rules member, 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will apologize in advance for actually talking on 
topic here.
  In 1791, the Second Session of Congress, John Page was a Congressman 
from Virginia, and he objected to his peers who wanted to leave and let 
the designation of postal routes be left to the President. They trusted 
the President, justifiably, but John Page threatened his colleagues by 
saying that if we do so he will move to adjourn and leave all the 
objects of legislation to the President's sole consideration and 
direction.

                              {time}  1310

  Now, the issue at hand back in 1791 was not necessarily what roads 
and routes should be taken, even though they did have an economic 
impact. The issue was who should designate those routes because every 
rule and regulation is, by definition, a legislative function. It is 
not a function of the administration that should be given to the 
President or the bureaucracies that are created because of it. It is a 
congressional function. But we do not take the time to make the details 
in our particular piece of legislation. When we simply ask in our 
legislation that a Secretary in a department shall have the power to 
write rules and regulations and then leave it at that, we are 
abrogating our responsibility.
  ``Country of origin'' labeling sounded like a great idea. We should 
know if we are buying American beef. Even though it was passed before I 
became a Member of Congress, it was my eighth year in Congress before 
they were able to write the rules because Congress did not take the 
time and effort to go through the details of understanding what we were 
doing when we are passing legislation.
  The States--my home State--has an administrative review committee 
that reviews every rule and regulation, because these are rules and 
regulations that our people must obey, and if they don't, they are 
subject to jail and fines; and it is done by a nameless executive 
bureaucracy that has no accountability to the people by ballot box, nor 
do they have it to us. We can simply say, Well, I'm sorry about the 
situation. They, over there, did it, instead of taking the time to do 
our responsibility. I am told that we need experts over in the 
executive branch to do this.
  The Founding Fathers designed the situation in this country so that 
people could make judgments for themselves. The idea of needing experts 
only came in the late 1800s, early 1900s when an individual, who 
eventually became President, wrote a book about Congress without ever 
having visited Congress. And in that, he claimed this balance of power, 
this separation of responsibilities was, in his words, ``constitutional 
witchcraft.'' From that time on, we decided to abrogate legislative 
responsibility and simply give it to the other branch, like it's one of 
those simple things.
  Congress has passed 16 jobs bills in the House and sent them over 
where the Democrat majority in the Senate has refused to deal with any 
of those bills. Congress is now also dealing with a variety of 
regulation bills which harm our ability to be economically competitive 
and harm our ability to actually build new jobs. And once again, the 
Democrat majority in the Senate has failed to do that.
  This is our time and responsibility to look forward to this 
situation, to take our role and responsibility and pass this particular 
bill because, like John Page said, It is our job. It is our 
responsibility. We should accept that responsibility.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has 
further speakers?
  Mr. NUGENT. Yes. I have one further speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  As I sit on the House floor here, I listen to the debate, and I hear 
a lot of conversations that are off-topic. We are talking, on the other 
side of the aisle, about payroll taxes and unemployment extensions. 
This is really a conversation about regulations that affect American 
businesses' ability to compete, expand, grow, and create jobs. This 
REINS Act is about holding Members of Congress, elected men and women, 
accountable to the people who sent them here to do their work, not to 
empower bureaucrats in Washington to pass rules that kill jobs all 
across this country.
  Just yesterday there was a press release in my district where one of 
our coal power plants has given notice that they are going to lay off 
74 people because of regulations coming from this town. And you talk a 
lot about the 99 percent. These are part of the 99 percent, people that 
are now not going to have a job because of regulations and rules that 
are shutting down our power sources in Wisconsin.
  So you can advocate for unemployment--and I'm happy that you are 
doing it--because your rules and regulations and the policies that you 
advocate for are causing 74 people in my district to now go on 
unemployment. That's unacceptable. Let's advocate for pro-growth 
policies that are going to help American businesses, entrepreneurs, and 
manufacturers compete in the global competition. If we continue down 
this path, we are going to see more businesses go overseas, taking with 
them the jobs of the people who work in our districts.
  So with that, I think we should all have a real conversation about 
the REINS Act and not about payroll tax and an unemployment extension.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am 
ready to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am prepared to close as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority's prioritization of special 
interests over the economy goes beyond their crusade against government 
protections for our clean air and water, and safe food and workplaces. 
Not only has the majority refused so far to pass an extension of the 
payroll tax holiday, meaning even though we're still struggling to 
recover from a recession, the average American family will see a $1,000 
increase in their taxes come January.
  They have also refused so far to extend unemployment benefits for the 
2.1 million Americans whose benefits will run out in the coming months 
if Congress does not act. Congress has never allowed emergency extended 
benefits to expire when a jobless rate has been anywhere close to its 
current level of 8.6 percent.
  Some Republicans like to argue that unemployment benefits give people 
a disincentive to work. But how are people supposed to take jobs that 
don't exist? Believe me, most of the people who are unemployed in our 
country right now would much rather get a job, but they can't find one. 
There are still roughly 6.5 million fewer jobs in the economy today 
than when the Great Recession started in 2007.
  So we're supposed to let them and their children starve or face 
possible eviction or foreclosure? All of the money that the unemployed 
receive in benefits goes right back into the economy when they buy 
groceries, clothes, and health care. The Economic Policy

[[Page 19003]]

Institute estimates that allowing these Federal unemployment benefits 
to expire would hurt consumer demand and, thereby, cost the U.S. 
economy 528,000 jobs.
  And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that 
providing extended unemployment benefits is one of the most effective 
job creation strategies available during a period of high joblessness, 
stating, ``Households receiving unemployment benefits tend to spend the 
additional benefits quickly, making this option both timely and cost-
effective in spurring economic activity and employment.''
  The choices facing us today couldn't be any clearer. That's why, Mr. 
Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule to require that we vote on an unemployment benefit 
extension and that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next 
year before we leave for the holidays.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so that we can do the right thing for 
working families and the millions of Americans looking for jobs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated that the REINS Act--
this act that we are talking about--``would revolutionize government in 
practice and help restore the representative democracy the Founders 
envisioned.'' Profound words. While discussing regulatory reform, Wayne 
Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributor to 
Forbes magazine said that ``reaffirming Congress' accountability to 
voters for agencies' most costly rules is a basic principle of good 
government.'' And Jonathan H. Adler, a professor of law at Case Western 
Reserve University School of Law, said in a congressional hearing 
earlier this year that the REINS Act ``offers a promising mechanism for 
disciplining Federal regulatory agencies and enhancing congressional 
accountability for Federal regulation.''
  The REINS Act brings accountability back to the regulatory process. I 
would agree that some regulations are necessary. We all want clean air 
and clean water. There's no doubt that we need that. We need a safe and 
healthy environment. We need safe food if we want to protect ourselves 
and our families. But regulations at what cost?
  Through the rulemaking process, the EPA has put a new burdensome 
standard on water quality in Florida alone. With the numeric nutrient 
rule the EPA wants to take over the State's water system. And because 
they are Washington bureaucrats trying to create a D.C. solution for a 
Florida problem, the requirements they have set on the State of Florida 
are scientifically impossible to reach given our State's natural 
phosphorous levels in our waters. Compliance will require an investment 
of billions of dollars that will be passed on--to whom? The Florida 
taxpayers, of course, effectively resulting in a new tax levied on all 
Floridians. Another analysis estimates that the EPA rulemaking will 
impose statewide costs ranging from $3.1 billion to $8.4 billion per 
year for the next 30 years.

                              {time}  1320

  To put that in perspective, Florida's total budget is only $64 
billion annually. The REINS Act is what people in Florida need and what 
people in the country need if we're going to keep executive agency 
rulemaking in check.
  We've heard about a number of issues on this House floor. We've heard 
about issues as they relate to unemployment and to the payroll tax 
holiday. These issues, though, aren't what are in front of us today. 
It's really about the REINS Act. It's really about getting government 
off the backs of people. It's about making Congress accountable for the 
actions of the agencies that have their authority granted through 
Congress. It's not the other way around.
  Regulatory agencies don't enact laws for Congress. Congress enacts 
laws. Congress enacts and gives the authority to those who regulate, 
but Congress can't walk away from its authority to oversee the rules, 
particularly the major rules, that are promulgated by these agencies--
that are costing us jobs, that are costing us billions of dollars every 
year.
  You've heard about it from all of my colleagues who spoke on this 
side of the aisle. I don't know when Congress lost its way--
Representative Bishop talked about it years and years ago--but Congress 
did lose its way. It's so much easier to just pass a law and say, You 
know what? Let the regulatory folks figure out how this is going to 
shake out at the end.
  That's not what we were elected to do. We were elected not only to 
pass laws but to make sure that the regulations that are proposed by 
those agencies that have the authority from this Congress are 
responsible to the people. We need to be responsible to the people who 
elected us, not the other way around--not responsible to bureaucrats in 
Washington, D.C.
  It's what I hear from all the businesses in my district. It's what I 
hear from the people I represent. They want government to get out of 
the way, not to end all regulations like you hear some of my friends 
across the aisle say. That's not what we're talking about. We are, 
though, talking about a congressional review before it actually comes 
to pass so that we stand up as a body and say, You know what? This is 
just not good for America.
  The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example of a jobs bill. They keep 
talking about the lack of jobs bills. Had the Keystone pipeline come to 
fruition, which the President has pushed off until 2013, there would 
have been 25,000 immediate jobs to create and construct that pipeline, 
and there would have been 100,000 new jobs within the areas of Texas 
and Louisiana as it relates to the processing of that oil.
  The last time I looked, Canada was a friend, but we buy oil from 
countries that hate us. Do you know what Canada said?--that China is 
ready to step in and help them out. Is that really what we want, or do 
we want to bring jobs to America?
  With all that has been said, we're to the point at which we need to 
talk about regulations, and that's what this bill does. It allows seven 
amendments that are germane to come to the floor--two Republican and 
five Democratic amendments.
  With that, I am happy to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:


    An amendment to H. Res. 479 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Not later than December 16, 2011, the House of 
     Representatives shall vote on passage of a bill to extend the 
     payroll tax holiday beyond 2011, the title of which is as 
     follows: `Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011.'.
       Sec. 5. Not later than December 16, 2011, the House of 
     Representatives shall vote on passage of a bill to provide 
     for the continuation of unemployment benefits, the title of 
     which is as follows: `Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
     Extension Act of 2011.'.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's

[[Page 19004]]

     ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal 
     of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question 
     passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in 
     order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of 
     the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House 
     defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition 
     rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________