[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12884-12886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 367.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 322 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 367.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1757


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 367) 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. Hultgren in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Earlier this month, President Obama announced that he would, once 
again, pivot to the economy. The bottom line of his speech, after 4\1/
2\ years of the Obama administration: ``We're not there yet.''
  The President is right: we're not there yet. Economic growth is the 
key to job creation and recovery, but America's growth rate is 
historically anemic. From 2010 through 2012, it averaged barely 2 
percent. In the fourth quarter of 2012, growth was just four-tenths of 
one percent.
  In the first two quarters of this year, growth averaged only 1.4 
percent according to the most recent estimates. These dismal figures 
translate into deep economic pain for America's workers and families.
  The June 2013 jobs report showed an increase of 240,000 in the number 
of discouraged workers, those who have simply quit looking for a job 
out of frustration or despair.
  The number of people working part-time, but who really want full-time 
work, passed 8.2 million. That represents a jump of 322,000 in just 1 
month.
  Worst of all, the truest measure of unemployment, the rate that 
includes both discouraged workers and those who cannot find a full-time 
job, continues to exceed 20 million Americans. That rate rose from 13.8 
percent back to 14.3 in June.
  America's labor force participation rate has fallen to levels not 
seen since the Carter administration. Median real household income, 
meanwhile, is 5 percent lower than in June of 2009, when the recession 
officially ended.

                              {time}  1800

  Median incomes are supposed to rise during economic recoveries, not 
fall. The Obama administration, however, has managed to buck the 
historical trend. Worse, median incomes remain 9 percent below the peak 
they reached in January 2008, before the financial crisis. The 
President is indeed right: we're not there yet. But what the President 
missed in his speech is that it is his administration's policies that 
are responsible for America still remaining so

[[Page 12885]]

deep in this economic hole. To see how true that is one only has to 
look at the historical record.
  The current recovery is the weakest on record in the post-World War 
II era. The contrast with the recovery Ronald Reagan achieved is 
particularly stark. Four-and-a-half years after the recession began in 
1981, the Reagan administration, through policies opposite to the Obama 
administration, had achieved a recovery that created 7.9 million more 
jobs than when the recession began. Real per capita gross domestic 
product rose by $3,091. Real median household income rose by 7.7 
percent.
  Surely, the administration knows this. But instead of fixing the 
problem by changing its policies, the Obama administration knows only 
one response: double down, increase taxes, increase spending, and 
increase regulation.
  The number of new major regulations the Obama administration has 
issued and plans to issue--generally, regulations with more than $100 
million in impacts--is without modern precedent. Testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee this term and during the 112th Congress has plainly 
shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation and 
declining levels of jobs and growth.
  To make matters worse, it is increasingly the case that, when 
Congress refuses to enable the administration's flawed policies through 
legislation, the administration unilaterally issues new regulations to 
achieve an end run around Congress.
  The REINS Act is one of the most powerful measures we can adopt to 
put an end to regulation that wrongheadedly imposes the 
administration's flawed policies on the American people. It achieves 
that result in the simplest and clearest ways--by requiring an up-or-
down vote by the people's representatives in Congress before any new 
major regulation can be imposed on our economy.
  Some say the REINS Act will mean an end to new major regulation, even 
when regulation is needed. But the REINS Act does not prohibit new 
major regulation. It simply establishes the principle: no major 
regulation without representation.
  By restoring to Members of Congress, who are accountable to the 
American people, the responsibility for America's costliest regulatory 
decisions, the REINS Act provides Congress and, ultimately, the people 
with a much-needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet turned by the 
Obama administration and Washington's regulatory bureaucrats.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for 
introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
REINS Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the REINS Act 
of 2013.
  As I noted during our extensive debate in the Judiciary Committee on 
this bill, it reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' I feel like 
Bill Murray. It's that day over and over again. We come back to the 
same bill.
  We extensively debated this bill in the last Congress; we debated 
bills very similar to it in this Congress; and, again, we're here 
debating this bill, which, by any sensible measure and probably a 
civics student in the 10th grade or less would know that this is a 
seriously flawed bill that will impede legislation and hurt the 
American public. It's based on a premise that regulations by themselves 
stifle job creation, a rather unique concept that we have come to 
debate in our committee and now on the floor.
  H.R. 367 threatens to undermine vital protections that ensure the 
safety and soundness of the entire range of societal needs, from food 
safety to clean air and clean water, to workplace safety, to consumer 
product safety, to financial stability. It does this by bringing most 
important Federal rulemakings--including those that protect the public 
like the Affordable Care Act and the implementation thereof, as well as 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act aimed at keeping us back from the 
catastrophic days back in 2008 or 2009 when the world was coming to an 
end because of derivatives--it takes the implementation of these bills 
to a screeching halt, a result that will put at risk the well-being of 
millions of Americans, both from fiscal health and physical health.
  The REINS Act would require that both Houses of Congress pass and the 
President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative 
days before a major rule can take effect. In the House, a committee of 
jurisdiction would have but 17 legislative days to consider a joint 
resolution of approval, after which it would automatically be 
discharged from the committee and sent to the full House--certainly not 
enough time to do a good job of reviewing the regulations. The House 
must consider such a resolution either on the second or fourth Thursday 
of every month, assuming that the House is even in session on that 
Thursday.
  The bill also defines a ``major rule'' as one having at least a $100 
million economic impact or having one of a number of other economic 
impacts. In all, Federal agencies issue about 50 to 100 major rules 
every year. That means that if the REINS Act had become law this year, 
there would only be 5 days left in 2013 for the House to consider 50 to 
100 major rules. And while the other side loves gas, as we've seen with 
the farm bill and THUD, they can't pass it.
  Given those traps set forth in the bill, no major rule would ever go 
into effect. This, in turn, threatens agencies' ability to protect 
Americans' health, safety, and well-being. It's a way of stifling the 
opportunity to protect Americans.
  Another concern with the REINS Act is the influence of industry 
lobbyists over rulemaking would tremendously increase. K Street would 
love it. Given the complexity of the rules at issue and the expedited 
timeframe for congressional consideration, Members would instead be 
bombarded with visits, phone calls, and talking points from industry 
lobbyists, who would no doubt take advantage of the REINS Act's short-
circuited process to shape Members' views about a particular rule, 
probably within days of a major fundraiser.
  On top of all the problems with this bill, it is simply unnecessary. 
First, to the extent that its proponents are concerned with Congress's 
accountability for agency rules, there are already numerous tools at 
our disposal to shape agency rulemaking. For example, Congress can 
rescind or limit its delegation authority to an agency if an agency 
acts beyond what we intended. Congress can also disapprove a rule under 
the Congressional Review Act process, defund enforcement of a rule or 
an agency through its appropriations and authorization power, overturn 
specific rules through legislation, and conduct regular oversight 
activity.
  Second, to the extent that the REINS Act's proponents claim that the 
bill is necessary because the Obama administration has inundated the 
country with costly regulations, the facts simply do not bear this out. 
Just because you say ``Obama'' doesn't mean it's bad. Most Americans 
like Obama. He's been elected President twice.
  In an op-ed that appeared in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Doyle 
McManus cited Cass Sunstein, former director of OIRA, known as the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who noted that in 
President Obama's ``first 4 years in office, he has issued fewer new 
Federal regulations than any of the four Presidents who came before 
him, including Ronald Reagan.''
  Moreover, the op-ed noted that this President has revoked ``hundreds 
of outmoded rules that produced savings for government, business, and 
consumers that will add up to billions.''
  Congress has already considered and rejected congressional approval 
schemes in the past. For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts--not 
exactly a flaming liberal--criticized legislation that was similar to 
the REINS Act back in 1983 when he was an associate White House 
counsel. In a memorandum, he objected that such legislation would 
``hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional 
assent to all major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive 
burdens on the regulatory agencies.''

[[Page 12886]]

  So before Chief Justice Roberts saved the ACA, he spoke out on this 
legislation as well in giving us wise counsel.
  Finally, the broader premise underlying the REINS Act--that 
regulation stifles economic growth and job creation--is simply false.
  It's pretty incredible that the proponents of antiregulatory bills 
like the REINS Act continue to make this claim in light of the fact 
there's absolutely no credible evidence establishing the fact that 
regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. But do not 
just take my word for it. Listen to some respected Republicans and 
conservatives.
  Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. 
Bush administrations, said:

       Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly 
     concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to 
     offer them. The GOP opposes additional government spending 
     for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending 
     that would likely lead to further layoffs at all levels of 
     government. These constraints have led Republicans to embrace 
     the idea that government regulation is the principal factor 
     holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama 
     unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created 
     uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing 
     and hiring.

  He concludes:

       No hard evidence is offered for this claim. It is simply 
     asserted as self-evident and repeated throughout the 
     conservative echo chamber.

  It's as if you say it enough, people will believe it.
  On the related argument that regulations create business uncertainty, 
Mr. Bartlett has said:

       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.

  That was Bruce Bartlett from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush days.
  Susan Dudley, who headed the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs during the administration of George W. Bush, has been quoted as 
saying that it is ``hard to know what the real impacts of regulation 
are.'' She also stated that she was unaware of any ``empirically sound 
way to assess the impact that proposed rules have on jobs.''
  During one of the many hearings held on this issue in the last 
Congress, the majority's own witness clearly debunked the myth that 
regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, with the 
conservative American Enterprise Institute, stated in his prepared 
testimony that ``the focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion and 
regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, 
while important, are indeterminate.''
  The REINS Act is seriously flawed in its very conception and based on 
false premises that regulation kills jobs. Ultimately, it will only 
serve to needlessly heighten risks to the health and safety--financial 
and physical--of the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
join me in opposition to H.R. 367, which I feel confident will pass 
this House and meet a timely death before it gets to see the light of 
day in the Senate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
367, the REINS Act.
  Some of my Democrat friends want to characterize this bill as an 
antiregulation bill. But a vote for the REINS Act isn't a vote against 
regulations. It's a vote for better regulations. It's a vote in favor 
of a smarter regulatory system. It's a vote to balance broad economic 
interests against the narrow jurisdiction of individual Federal 
agencies. It's a vote to give the people most affected by regulations a 
louder voice in the democratic process.
  Yesterday, the White House threatened to veto this bill if it passes. 
In their veto threat, they wrote:

       Maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility 
     between the two branches is essential to ensuring that the 
     Nation's regulatory system effectively protects public 
     health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while also 
     promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and 
     job creation.

  I couldn't agree more. That's exactly why I introduced this bill in 
January. For those, like me, who are truly concerned about maintaining 
an appropriate allocation of responsibility between the two branches, 
regardless of who occupies the White House, it's worth noting the 
executive branch only derives its power and only invokes its 
responsibility to issue a given legislation when the legislative 
branches authorize it to do so, and only in accordance with legislation 
passed by Congress.
  However, this ``allocation of responsibility'' has been thrown out of 
whack because Congress has taken to the habit of passing sweeping, 
ambiguous laws that leave it to Federal agencies to sort out the 
details. This is typically done for the purpose of rushing bills 
through Congress in order to meet a political timetable or because 
certain Members would prefer to avoid working through the controversial 
details. It's much easier to leave such decisions to unaccountable 
rulemakers, after all.
  ObamaCare is a great example of this phenomenon. As the minority 
leader said when she served as Speaker:

       We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.

  It turns out that's exactly the case. They had to pass the bill so 
HHS, the IRS, and our veritable alphabet soup of Federal agencies could 
tell us how the law would actually work. In fact, we still don't know 
exactly what's in the bill because we're still waiting on more 
regulations.

                              {time}  1815

  If the REINS Act were in place, none of the major regulations that 
are issued for ObamaCare or other sweeping laws would take effect until 
Congress approved them. This would make our regulatory process smarter 
for a number of reasons--chiefly, because we currently regulate in 
silos.
  Now, when HHS employees are drafting a regulation about health 
insurance, for instance, they narrowly focus only on insurance. They 
aren't too worried about economic growth. If the IRS is drafting a 
regulation on tax collection, they are likely to focus narrowly on 
taxes. They don't take much into account job losses and income effects.
  We need a Congress that can comprehensively look at these things, a 
body that can, in the words of the White House, ``protect public 
health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while also promoting 
economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation,'' all 
at the same time.
  So as we learn what's actually in ObamaCare and other laws, why is it 
such a bad idea to ensure that individual, rank-and-file Americans get 
to weigh in, through their elected representatives, on the important 
details that impact their pocketbooks, consume their time, and govern 
countless aspects of their daily lives?
  The truth is it's not a bad idea. In fact, I predict Congress would 
take the time to more thoroughly and publicly deliberate about these 
large ambiguous bills if the regulators didn't get the final say. In 
the end, we would end up with better, clearer legislation in a 
diminished role for unelected rulemakers. More Americans could stay 
engaged in the entire lawmaking process and could voice their concerns 
in a meaningful way. And politicians would be unable to hide behind so-
called ``unelected bureaucrats'' because the American people could 
ultimately hold Congress accountable for the rules coming out of 
Washington.
  I implore my colleagues to join me in restoring a measure of 
accountability to the democratic process. Support this bill.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________