Amendment Text: H.Amdt.898 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (12/07/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H8228 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H8209-H8238]
     REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2011

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479 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. 10.

                              {time}  1400


                     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. 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, with Mr. 
Denham 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 Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The American people today have been hit by an onslaught of 
unnecessary Federal regulations. From the Obama administration's health 
care mandate to the increase of burdens on small businesses, government 
regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation.
  By its own admission, the administration is preparing numerous 
regulations that each will cost the economy $1 billion or more per 
year. Its 2011 regulatory agenda calls for over 200 major rules which 
will affect the economy by $100 million or more each every year.
  Employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, are rightly 
concerned about these costs and the costs that regulations impose on 
their businesses. In a Gallup poll conducted last month, nearly one-
quarter of small business owners cited compliance with government 
regulations as their primary concern. That should motivate us to take 
action today.
  Rather than restrain its efforts to expand government, the 
administration now seeks to accomplish through regulatory agencies what 
it cannot get approved by Congress. The REINS Act gives the people's 
representatives in Congress the final say over whether Washington will 
impose major new regulations on the American economy.
  More than once this year, the President himself has talked about the 
dangers that excessive regulations pose to our economy. He has called 
for reviews of existing regulations. He has professed a commitment to 
more transparency. The President has stated that ``it is extremely 
important to minimize regulatory burdens and avoid unjustified 
regulatory costs.''
  Unfortunately, the President's actions speak louder than his words. 
But rather than make good on its statements, the Obama administration 
has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the 
previous administration over a similar time period. And the White House 
has admitted to Congress that, for most new major regulations issued in 
2010, government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits.
  It is time for Congress to take action to reverse these harmful 
policies. With the REINS Act, we can hold the administration 
accountable for its unjustified regulatory assault on America's job 
creators; and we can guarantee that Congress, not unelected agency 
officials, will be accountable for all new major regulatory costs.
  The American people want job creation, not more regulation. The REINS 
Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations that burden America's 
businesses and job creators.
  I thank Mr. Davis of Kentucky for introducing this legislation. I 
urge all my colleagues to support the REINS Act, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, H.R. 10 is the mother of all 
antiregulatory bills. Since the House was in session during 2010 for 
116 legislative days, under this bill--and I invite any of my 
colleagues to make any different analysis--the Congress would be 
required after 70 days after they receive a rule to act upon it. If you 
only have 116 days, legislative days a year, it would be literally 
impossible to handle the number of rules that we would get.
  Namely, we got 94 rules last year, 116 days. If we were handling 
every rule--please, use your arithmetic skills, ladies and gentlemen. 
This bill would be unworkable, and it would be impossible for new 
regulations to be enacted. But then, maybe that's the whole thrust of 
the matter.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who is the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman.
  Two years ago, I met with the a constituent who was concerned about 
the effects of unfunded EPA mandates on his water and sewer bills. He 
wanted to

[[Page H8210]]

know why Congress doesn't vote on new regulations. This simple question 
inspired the legislation that we're considering today, and it also begs 
a broader question: Who should be accountable to the American people 
for major laws with which they are forced to comply?
  Since the New Deal, every Congress has delegated more of its 
constitutional lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats in 
administrative agencies through vaguely written laws. This is an 
abdication of Congress' constitutional responsibility to write the 
laws.
  This practice of excessive delegation of legislative powers to the 
executive branch allows Members of Congress to take credit for the 
benefits of the law it has passed and then blame Federal agencies for 
the costs and requirements of regulations authorized by the same 
legislation. Members of Congress are never required to support, oppose, 
or otherwise contribute to Federal regulations that are major and 
finalized under their watch.
  Even more troubling, this practice has enabled the executive branch 
to overstep the intent of Congress and legislate through regulation 
based on broad authorities previously given the agency. In recent 
years, we've seen examples of administrative agencies, regardless of 
party, going beyond their original grants of power to implement 
policies not approved by the people's Congress.
  In several cases, such as net neutrality rules and the regulation of 
carbon emissions, agencies are pursuing regulatory action after 
Congress has explicitly rejected the concept. In fact, administrative 
officials publicly proclaimed the strategy after the results of the 
2010 elections, going around Congress by forcing their agenda through 
regulation.
  In February of last year, The New York Times quoted White House 
Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer as saying, ``In 2010, executive 
actions will also play a key role in advancing the administration's 
agenda.'' True to their word, the administration continues using 
regulations as an end around Congress.
  The lack of congressional accountability for the regulatory process 
has allowed the regulatory state to grow almost unchecked for 
generations. Federal administrative agencies issued 3,271 new rules in 
2010, or roughly nine regulations per day.
  These regulations have a profound impact on our economy. The Small 
Business Administration estimated that regulations cost the American 
economy $1.75 trillion in 2008, and that's nearly twice the amount of 
individual income taxes paid in this country that year. Small 
businesses spend an estimated $10,500 per employee to comply with 
Federal rules, a considerable burden on the private sector's ability to 
create jobs at a time of continued economic struggles.
  Today, we can choose to continue on this path, or we can vote to 
restore our constitutional duty to make law and be held accountable for 
the details. The REINS Act effectively constrains the delegation of 
congressional authority by limiting the size and scope of rulemaking 
permission.
  Once major rules are drafted and finalized by an agency, the REINS 
Act would require Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on any major 
regulation. Major regulations are those with an annual economic impact 
of more than $100 million, as determined by the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs. The President would also have to sign the 
resolution before it could be enforced on the American people, job 
creators, or State and local governments. Every major regulation would 
be voted on within 70 legislative days.
  The REINS Act was specifically written not to unnecessarily hold up 
the regulatory process. Rather, the bill prevents REINS resolutions 
from being filibustered in the Senate.
  The point of the REINS Act is simply accountability. Each Congressman 
must take a stand and be accountable for regulations that cost our 
citizenry $100 million or more annually. No longer would Congress be 
able to avoid accountability by writing vague laws requiring the 
benefits up front and leaving the unpopular or costly elements to the 
bureaucrats who will write those elements of the law at some later 
date. Whether or not Congress approves a particular regulation, there 
will be a clearly accountable vote on the subject that the American 
people can see and judge for themselves.

                              {time}  1410

  This ensures the greatest regulatory burdens on our economy are 
necessary to promote the public welfare, rather than simply sprouting 
from the minds of unelected bureaucrats.
  The bill's name as a metaphor for the reins on a horse is fitting. 
The purpose of reins is not to keep a horse at a standstill. Reins are 
a tool to ensure that the horse knows what is expected of him and is 
acting according to the intent and will of the rider.
  Likewise, the REINS Act would not stop the regulatory process. It 
would improve the regulatory process by ensuring that new major rules 
match the intent of Congress and the will of the American people. The 
REINS Act would foster greater upfront cooperation between agencies and 
future Congresses, resulting in better written legislation and 
regulation.
  With greater accountability and transparency, regulatory agencies 
will have no choice but to write regulations that reflect the need for 
sensible standards and take into account the impact regulations have on 
American businesses and families.
  Similarly, agencies would no longer be able to bypass Congress with 
regulations that don't match congressional intent or go too far.
  Not all regulations are bad. Many provide needed public safeguards, 
help to keep the American people safe, and maintain a level playing 
field for businesses to compete. And so good regulations would be 
approved by future Congresses, and those that could not withstand the 
public scrutiny of a vote in Congress would not.
  A commonsense regulatory system with appropriate checks and balances 
on the most economically significant rules will help to revive our 
stagnant economy and give more businesses the ability to hire thanks to 
a better sense of stability and what to expect from Washington going 
forward.
  The question we're asked today is in effect the same I was asked by 
my constituent in August of 2009: Who should be accountable for the 
rules and regulations that have the greatest economic impact on our 
economy? My answer is the Congress. In an era of high unemployment, 
Congress can no longer avoid its responsibility to the American people 
for the regulatory burden. Passing the REINS Act today would be a major 
step forward in returning to a constitutional, responsible, 
legislative, and regulatory framework.
  I want to thank Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith for his countless 
efforts on behalf of the REINS Act and his leadership, as well as the 
more than 200 cosponsors of this bill in the House. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The REINS Act is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills in the 
Congress. The only problem, I say to the distinguished author, the 
gentleman from Kentucky, is that it won't work. There are only 116 
legislative days.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Jim Moran.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the very distinguished former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  This Republican bill is neither effective nor responsible. To 
paraphrase H.L. Mencken, eliminating Federal agency rulemaking as we 
know it is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, despite what the House majority would like you to 
believe, our Federal regulatory process is a model the world over. 
Delegations from other countries frequently visit our government 
agencies to learn how their governments can best ensure public 
involvement while maximizing government effectiveness and efficiency. 
Why? Because our regulatory system is the most open and the most fair 
system in the world.
  Current law already guarantees that proposed regulations get widely 
published and receive extensive public participation. The proof of that 
is that proposed Federal regulations receive hundreds, thousands, even 
millions of public comments. The U.S. Forest Service, for example, 
received over 1.6 million comments on its roadless rule and held over 
600 public meetings.

[[Page H8211]]

  And public involvement doesn't stop there. Federal agencies are 
required by law to consider and respond to each comment received. 
Commenters frequently request and receive comment-period extensions. 
And when agencies learn of legitimate problems with their proposed 
regulations, they change or withdraw them to address those concerns.
  As an additional check on Federal rulemaking, Congress passed the 
Congressional Review Act. This law already provides a 60-day waiting 
period before a final rule becomes effective. And during that delay, 
Congress can disapprove an agency rule by joint resolution.
  The fact is that Federal agencies already have the right attitude 
about regulation. I think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke summed 
up agency regulatory philosophy best: We seek to implement the will of 
Congress in a manner that provides the greatest benefit at the lowest 
cost to society as a whole.
  This bill takes America in the wrong direction--one full of risk and 
cost that will put the public's health and safety at great risk.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join Chairman Conyers in opposing 
this wrong legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House 
Republican Conference.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it was just a few weeks ago that our Nation celebrated 
Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, in the Obama economy, millions could not 
give thanks for having a job. In the Obama economy, unemployment 
remains mired at near or above 9 percent. In the Obama economy, one in 
seven are on food stamps. In the Obama economy, we have seen the fewest 
small business startups in 17 years.
  That's why, Mr. Chairman, jobs are job number one for House 
Republicans.
  That's why our jobs bills have been passed; but, unfortunately, 25 of 
them are stacking up like cord wood in the Democratic-controlled 
Senate. After today, it will be 26 because one of the most important 
pro-jobs bills is on the floor today, the REINS Act.
  Mr. Chairman, whether I'm speaking to Fortune 50 CEOs out of Dallas, 
Texas, where I reside, or small business people in east Texas that I 
have the privilege of representing in this body, they all tell me the 
same thing: the number one impediment to jobs in America today is the 
Federal regulatory burden.
  I hear from them each and every day. I heard from the Grasch family 
in the Fifth District of Texas:
  ``As a small business, I have to bring in an additional thousand 
dollars a month to break even.'' He's talking about his regulatory 
burden. ``This is while consumers have less money to purchase my 
services. I will not invest in any further expansion and therefore not 
hiring until smarter policies are being conveyed from Washington.''
  I heard from the Rossa family, also in the Fifth District, who talks 
about the regulatory burden from the President's health care plan:
  ``My company has laid off all staff, and I myself will file for 
unemployment on Monday. That's about 23 people added to the 
unemployment rolls next week,'' again due to Federal regulation.
  I heard from the Nixon family in the Fifth District of Texas. Federal 
regulation, again:
  ``We are giving up this part of our business. One person's losing 
their job. This is just one small example of how excessive government 
regulation is stifling business.''
  It's the number one impediment, and all we're asking today with the 
REINS Act is that if a regulation is going to cost our economy jobs, if 
it's going to cost a hundred million dollars or more, let's have 
congressional approval. It's common sense. It forces accountability. It 
simply weighs the benefit of a regulation to be balanced with the cost 
to our own jobs.
  Jobs ought to be number one in this House, and the number one jobs 
bill we can pass is the REINS Act. I ask for once that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle join me, and let's put America back to 
work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia, Steve Cohen, a ranking subcommittee member in 
Judiciary.
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, but I don't appreciate the 
relocation. I am from Tennessee, the Volunteer State, and from Memphis, 
in particular. But it is appropriate, I guess, that we be a little 
confused with States because listening to the debate on the floor, it's 
obvious we're a little confused about history and Presidents, too, for 
President Obama has been Bush-whacked here on the floor of the House.
  It's not the Obama economy, it's the Bush economy that President 
Obama saved from going into the second Great Depression that this 
country would have suffered in 100 years, saved it from depression with 
great actions at a time of bipartisan action that helped save this 
country from the Great Depression that it was otherwise looking at. I 
think we need to commend President Obama and not Bush-whack him when we 
get the chance here in the partisan discussions.

                              {time}  1420

  This bill that has been brought up, H.R. 10, the REINS Act, would 
rein in government. It would rein in the opportunity for regulations 
that are promulgated by experts in our agencies, experts who have years 
of expertise in subject matters, in order to come up with rules and 
regulations to implement the laws that we pass.
  Now, I am proud to be a Member of the United States Congress. I know 
that we have good men and women in this House and that most of the 
people are very good men and women. But right now, Congress has a 9 
percent approval rating. This bill would tell the American public that 
it should take the expertise of the people who are in the agencies and 
in the administration and turn it over to the 435 Members of Congress--
535 when including those in the Senate--the least approved government 
body that exists.
  On the one hand, they decry Congress, and their candidate Mr. Perry 
wants us to work half time, but this bill would make us the super-
regulatory commission. We would have to approve every regulation by a 
positive vote in the House and by a positive vote in the Senate. We 
would have to do it and have the President sign it within 70 days of 
promulgation. We'd only have every other Thursday to do this, and we'd 
only have debate of 30 minutes on each side. So you'd take the least 
respected body of government in the entire United States of America--
maybe of the entire world--and give it a very limited amount of time to 
make all of the rules and regulations for the biggest government in the 
world.
  Talk about clean air. We wouldn't have it. You'd have more dirty 
rain. The REINS Act--it should be called the Acid Rain Act. It's 
raining outside. It's raining prevarications, fabrications, and canards 
upon us, none of which are appropriate for this body or for the 
American people.
  We've had several bills dealing with regulation in this session, all 
of which basically tend to emasculate government. These bills take away 
the people's rights to clean air, clean water, safe products, and to 
occupational safety and health hazard protection, all of which are 
almost second nature to the American public.
  I'd ask us to defeat this bill and to protect our environment and our 
workers.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. The mere phrase ``the regulators'' brings fear and 
trepidation down into the hearts and souls of small business owners 
throughout the fruited plain.
  Mr. Chairman, the Code of Federal Regulations is 150,000-pages long. 
That's a lot of pages. Those are a lot of regulations. According to the 
Small Business Administration, the annual cost of all Federal 
regulations in this country was almost $2 trillion in 2008.
  Now, do we really need all of those expensive regulations? Good thing 
the Federal regulators weren't around when the Ten Commandments were 
written--no telling what additional regulations they would have added 
to those simple 10 phrases.
  It is common sense that Congress should have a say on a regulation 
that

[[Page H8212]]

would have a drastic, expensive effect on our economy. So why do my 
friends on the other side, who are such big friends of regulations, not 
want the regulators to be regulated? I don't understand that.
  Remember, we are elected.
  The regulators are not.
  Congress is the branch of government that is closely connected to the 
people, and if Congress approves unnecessary and burdensome 
regulations, we have to be accountable to our voters in our districts 
for that.
  Who do the regulators answer to?
  No one. They only answer to their supervisors, who are also 
regulators.
  When the regulators go to work every day, like most people go to 
work, their work assignments are a little different. In my opinion, 
they sit around a big oak table, drinking their lattes, they have out 
their iPads and their computers, and they decide: Who shall we regulate 
today? Then they write a regulation, send it out to the masses, and 
make us deal with the cost of that.
  All the REINS Act does is ask that the Congress be involved in these 
overburdensome regulations.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valuable member of 
the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Hank 
Johnson.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-
called REINS Act. It's a demonstration of the reign of terror that the 
Tea Party-Grover Norquist Republican Party has exacted on Americans 
insofar as their health and safety are concerned, and in terms of their 
ability as small businesses to compete with Wall Street and Big 
Business.
  You see, this is a Christmas gift. It's a gift to those who installed 
this Tea Party reign in Congress, and this Tea Party reign, the 
Republicans in Congress, are doing everything they're supposed to do.
  This is the anti-regulatory bill, as the chairman said, that is the 
mother of all anti-regulatory bills. In fact, these 25, 26 bills that 
have been misnamed ``jobs bills'' that the Republicans have passed are 
nothing more than anti-regulatory legislation, sprinkled with a little 
antiabortion legislation in there--with not one job to be created.
  You're just simply kowtowing to the wishes of those who line your 
pockets with gold in order for you to get elected.
  This anti-regulatory legislation is turning the clock back on 
progress in America. We want to turn it all over to Big Business. This 
is what the Wall Street occupation is all about. This is what the Tea 
Party is all about.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This bill will make it impossible to 
implement critical new regulations that will place some restraints on 
the excesses of the business community, and I ask that it be defeated.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10 because 
greater congressional scrutiny of major regulations ensures that the 
Federal Government is more accountable to the American people.
  Poll after poll of small business owners and of medium-sized business 
owners will show you that major regulations are holding back their 
expansions and the ability for them to hire more workers. Yet you don't 
have to rely on polls. You can just go down and talk to the local 
businesses in your districts. I had a job forum the other week. Time 
and time again, the constant refrain we heard from these business 
leaders was that the overly burdensome regulatory environment is 
holding back their expansions.
  Several months ago, in the beginning of the 112th Congress, I had 
some hope because President Obama issued an Executive order that 
required agencies to review their regulations to see if we could have a 
less burdensome regulatory environment. Unfortunately, what happened 
was that those were just words, and were not followed up by actual 
action, for, since then, the administration has continued to introduce 
new regulations at a rapid rate.
  In this year alone, over 73,000 pages of new regulations have been 
added to the Federal Register at a cost of $67.4 billion. Mr. Chairman, 
I have right here the amount of paper that has been added to the 
Federal Register in one week. This is last week's regulations. It's 
pretty hefty. Actually, it's 8 pounds, 13 ounces. There are 2,940 brand 
new pages of Federal regulations that would stretch, if you laid them 
end to end, 2,695 feet.
  At this time, there are more than 4,000 new regulations in the 
pipeline. Of those, 224 are major regulations that will have an 
economic impact exceeding $100 million. So, at a minimum, the annual 
economic impact for these new regulations will be $22 billion.
  We need to change this. Some of these agencies act outside the 
statutory authority granted by Congress, and we must stop this. The 
REINS Act is the way to do it, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this measure.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior member of 
the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, the 
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  I think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what is 
being asked of this body. I believe it is a nullification of the 
Constitution, which I like to carry, and the very distinct definition 
of the three branches of government and their responsibilities.
  Frankly, our friends are trying to equate this Congress and its do-
nothing record to the work of the executives, and now to create a do-
nothing pathway for the rulemaking process which, as I've indicated on 
many of the bills that have already passed, there is a Federal court 
process for anyone that wants to challenge the process of rulemaking or 
whether or not due process has been denied. So I'd actually say that 
what we have here is a complete shutdown of the Federal Government, for 
it is asking this Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval for 
any major rule to be passed.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to you what would happen: Warnings 
on cigarette packages would no longer exist; Medicare payments for 
those lying in psychiatric hospitals would not be able to be paid; and 
the emissions standards for boiler pollutants, hazardous pollutants out 
of industrial, commercial, and institutional emissions would go flat; 
and we would have a nation that small businesses, I believe, would 
argue would also be a distraction from the work that they do.
  It is interesting that my friends would want to use the backs of 
small businesses to pretend that they are protecting them. First of 
all, if they look at their facts, they will note the Obama 
administration has passed less rules than the Bush administration.
  As I indicated, they will also note that the 111th Congress passed 
more constructive bills to help small businesses than this Congress 
could ever do, and the fact that they would note that it has been 
recorded that this Congress is the largest do-nothing Congress that has 
ever existed. It would be helpful if we could pass the payroll tax cut 
for 160 million Americans, allow them to infuse dollars, 1,000 or 
$1,500, into the small businesses of America.
  I will tell you that my small businesses will celebrate that. In 
visiting a medical clinic owned by a doctor that had thousands of feet 
that he wanted to rehab and expand, he said that payroll tax that was 
part of the jobs bill that the President wanted to pass through this 
do-nothing House of Representatives would have helped him greatly.
  Then we have millions of Americans, 6 million, who are trying to get 
unemployment insurance. Here we are down to the last wire telling those 
in this blessed holiday season, whatever your faith, that you have to 
wait at the door and, in fact, there may not be any room at the inn for 
6 million who don't have their unemployment insurance.
  I don't want to shut down the government.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.

[[Page H8213]]

  I don't want to shut down the government. I want a government that 
works. Rulemaking is not the demon here; and the process of rulemaking, 
if you read it, provides the input and assessment of those who are 
concerned.
  What this does is involve the President, the Congress, in a scheme 
that is so dilatory that we will never do any work in this Congress. I 
beg of you to defeat this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to debate H.R. 10 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). REINS would 
amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional 
approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is 
greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the 
rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at 
executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.
  In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of 
Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as a 
member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the 
Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main 
functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.
  If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule, 
it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the 
Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields. 
Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific 
and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of 
certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become 
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal 
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to 
effect the change that Americans want. For example extending 
unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet, 
here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our 
economy.
  There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. 
The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing (on H.R. 3010 a 
bill based on the same false premise) clearly debunked the myth that 
regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on 
behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, 
stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can 
lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment 
effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
  If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans 
back to work. For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes: ``Studies on 
the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most 
regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic 
growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and 
safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that 
the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 
86% since its passage in 1970.''
  Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the 
Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure 
``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong 
economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that 
increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of 
more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.


  REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY IS NOT WHY BUSINESSES ARE NOT HIRING WORKERS

  The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been 
debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy 
analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed 
``[R]egulatory 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.''
  Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of 
demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for 
not hiring.
  At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor 
Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence 
contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business 
investment.''
  A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found 
that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring 
is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''
  The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of 
its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the 
biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent 
blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher 
materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling 
prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''
  Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they 
need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses, 
observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main 
Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more 
customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our 
customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk 
and more costs onto us from big corporate actors. . . . To create jobs 
and get our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small 
businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their 
pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free 
rein to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force 
small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to set the record straight. The bill is not antiregulatory but 
pro-accountability. It will enable both Republican and Democratic 
majorities in Congress to make the final calls on major regulations 
that come from administrations of either party. Majorities of either 
party can be expected to approve regulations whenever appropriate, but 
the key is that Congress always be held accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Amodei), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. AMODEI. I thank my distinguished chairman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, 85 percent of the land in Nevada is controlled by the 
Federal Government. Perhaps no other State in the Nation lives with a 
more daily, direct impact of the presence of the Federal Government and 
its regulatory regime than the Silver State.
  Community-driven development proposals that would generate economic 
growth often take years longer than they should because of layer upon 
layer of regulatory, mandatory gymnastics. Home builders, agribusiness, 
mining, manufacturers, retailers, the resort and hospitality 
industries, small business in general all lament the gymnastics that 
they have to go through to get a permit or even to comply with existing 
regulations.
  All of that effort in a State, which I am sorry to have to sit up 
here and remind you, 85 percent of the land controlled by the Federal 
Government, highest unemployment rate in the Nation, highest 
foreclosure rate in the Nation. We are trying to generate economic 
development, and it's taking years to get a permit because of 
regulatory regimes. There is no one that will indicate that that is not 
the case.
  So when we talk about this issue before us today--and I congratulate 
my colleague from Kentucky. When we talk about the job of Congress in 
an oversight sense, I think it is entirely appropriate that you revisit 
the regulations that are promulgated not out of thin air, but as a 
result of the statutes that pass these two Houses. And to revisit that 
point and make sure that those regulations bear resemblance to both 
sides of the aisles' legislative intent where they're supported is 
something we ought to guard zealously; because, the last time I 
checked, the Federal-elected officials in the executive branch numbered 
two. And it doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from or 
what party they come from, I think it's appropriate for those 535 who 
send those measures to those folks, check back to make sure that's 
being done appropriately.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
senior member of the Education Committee, the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Rob Andrews.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, 25 days from now, if the Congress doesn't 
act, every middle class family in this country is going to have a 
$1,000 tax increase. Twenty-five days from now, if the Congress doesn't 
act, doctors who take care of our Medicare patients are going to have a 
23 percent cut in the fee they get to see Medicare patients. During 
those 25 days, several million Americans who are out there looking for 
a job every day are going to receive their last unemployment benefits 
check.
  These are the issues confronting America today, and what are we 
doing?

[[Page H8214]]

We're debating a bill that says that some regulation the government 
might do someday in the future should have a procedure where Congress 
can reject it. There already is such a procedure.
  And for all these terrible regulations we keep hearing about that 
have been introduced this year, do you know how many times the majority 
has brought to the floor a resolution to reject one of those 
regulations? Once.
  So this is such a grave threat to the country's economy that the 
majority that controls the floor has chosen on one occasion to bring a 
regulation to the floor.
  What we ought to be doing is canceling out this $1,000-a-year tax 
increase on the middle class. What we ought to be doing is making sure 
our seniors can see the doctor come January 1. What we ought to be 
doing is making sure Americans who are diligent in looking for work 
don't run out of employment benefits. But that's not what we're doing.
  This is not only the wrong bill, it's the wrong time. Let's put on 
the floor a bill that puts Americans back to work and focuses on the 
real priorities of the country.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, with so many American families struggling, 
with so many Americans struggling to find work, and businesses 
struggling to hire unemployed Americans, it's time to rein in the 
Federal Government. It's time to rein in the avalanche of red tape 
cascading out of Washington, D.C. and stifling our recovery. It's time 
to enact the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
2011, the REINS Act.
  I rise to commend the gentleman from Kentucky, Congressman Geoff 
Davis, for his visionary and tireless efforts in moving the REINS Act 
to the floor today and for his leadership in this Congress.
  You know, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They 
represent 99.7 percent of employer firms, and have generated 65 percent 
of net new jobs over the past 17 years. Yet today, as most American 
small businesses know, our job creators are saddled with too many 
regulations and too many regulatory authorities. According to the Small 
Business Administration, the average small business faces a cost of 
$10,585 in Federal regulation per employee each and every year. The 
REINS Act will address that. It will protect jobs and promote small 
business growth by ensuring that the legislative branch has the final 
say on major regulations before they take effect.
  This legislation reforms the rulemaking process by requiring that 
Congress approve any regulation that would have an annual economic 
impact of $100 million or more. For too long, Congress has delegated 
its legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats and agency officials 
to determine the rulemaking process. It's time to bring that authority 
back into the Congress where the Framers of the Constitution intended 
it to be, especially with regard to major rulemaking.
  The American people are hurting. The American economy is struggling. 
It's time to rein in Big Government and release the inherent power of 
the American economy. Again, I urge my colleagues to join with me in a 
bipartisan fashion, I hope and trust, in support of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Connecticut, the Honorable Jim Himes.
  Mr. HIMES. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon, as I frequently do in this 
Chamber, a little incredulous at what it is that I'm hearing. I'm 
hearing stories about east Texas. I'm hearing about lattes, and I'm 
hearing that the number one reason American businesses are not hiring 
is because of regulations. It's baloney. There's not a fact in there.
  Here's some facts. I wish I had more time to get into these facts. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which studies this stuff, asked 
businesses that have been laying people off, why? Regulations was a 
negligible answer.
  I would love to talk about Bruce Bartlett, financial adviser to 
President Reagan, Republican, who said that the notion that regulation 
is why this economy is on its back was just plain made up.
  If I had more time, I would like to talk about our former colleague, 
Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who said the House is moving forward 
with bills that would cripple the regulatory system, but they show how 
far a party enthralled by its right-most wing is willing to veer from 
what has long been the mainstream.
  I've got deep problems with this crazy idea that we should have 
Congress sign off on every regulation. But my biggest problem, Mr. 
Chairman, is that we're standing here today talking about this. I hear 
endlessly about the uncertainty associated with these regulations. Mr. 
Chairman, I was shocked to look at my schedule tomorrow to see that the 
Republican majority is sending me home. And I'm going to talk to people 
in Connecticut tomorrow who are uncertain if after next month they're 
going to have unemployment insurance available to them because they 
don't have a job and they don't have money. And they may not have food 
on their table.
  Small businesses and an awful lot of Americans with jobs in my 
district are uncertain about whether they will see an extension of the 
payroll tax that we passed in bipartisan fashion.
  Except we're here talking about this, a fraudulent idea followed by a 
terrible legislative proposal, instead of dealing with the imminent 
expiration of unemployment insurance and payroll tax. Let's talk about 
those things. Let's remove the uncertainty for the people we represent. 
We represent people who have a lot of uncertainty about whether they'll 
have unemployment insurance or the payroll tax cut. Let's deal with 
that.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the REINS Act. This 
is legislation that will bring forward reform, accountability, and 
transparency to the Federal rulemaking process. You know what, it's 
time for Congress to act more like a board of directors where we will 
have to oversee proposed rules and regulations, especially those that 
have a significant economic impact. This bill will absolutely force 
accountability. It allows regulations to go forward, but it's also 
going to force Congress to analyze, to pay attention, and then finally 
to act.
  So no longer are we going to see agencies and unelected bureaucrats 
being able to promulgate these rules and regulations without having an 
appropriate check and balance. There are thousands and thousands and 
thousands of these rules and regulations in the pipeline, and over 200, 
224 specifically, that have that major economic impact threshold that 
would be affected by the REINS Act. That's a cost of over $22 billion, 
at a minimum, to the economy.
  If we want to help small businesses grow, if we want to grow jobs, if 
we want to help our economy get going and jump start it, we need to 
remove that cloud of uncertainty that is hanging over the heads of 
small and medium-sized businesses in that regulatory environment.
  I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership in 
leading this reform. I ask for its passage.
  Here's an example of a proposed guideline that is of particular 
concern to me. The FTC, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the 
CDC have a proposal which seeks to restrict advertising, marketing and 
sales of food products. As drafted, it would affect 88 of the top 100 
most consumed food and would have devastating effects. If this were to 
go through, one study estimates it could affect more than 74,000 jobs 
in the first year alone.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlelady from Colorado, Diana DeGette, who serves on 
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, do we really want to bind Congress to more 
votes so we can play Monday morning quarterback for the executive 
branch every time it tries to finalize a rule? Don't we have enough 
gridlock around here?

[[Page H8215]]

  Look around. The REINS Act would grind our government to a halt and 
stymie the implementation of regulations to protect consumers and 
protect public health and well-being.
  Now, look, this bill would add a feedback loop to require Congress to 
approve major rules that it has already specifically directed an agency 
to promulgate. What we really need are smart people and streamlined 
regulations regardless of which party is in charge of Congress.
  In 2010 alone, Federal agencies finalized important rules related to 
energy efficiency, community disaster loans, weatherization assistance 
for low-income people, truth in lending, and better pay for teachers. 
All of those rules would be considered major rules under the REINS Act, 
and all of those rules would have required congressional approval. Good 
luck there with this Congress.
  Who would oppose final approval of these rules that protect everyday 
Americans? Well, based on the track record of the 112th Congress, some 
special interest group would find a way. In fact, the REINS Act would 
allow special interests a back-door entrance to have their way and 
weaken laws that protect the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know standing here today this bill won't become 
law; and the majority knows it, too. Why? Because it's a bad idea.
  In these last days of the year, what we should be doing is finding a 
way to help the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking for a 
job by extending their unemployment insurance. We should be helping 
middle class Americans by helping extend their payroll tax cuts so that 
they can pay for the food and everything else they're putting on their 
table. That's what the focus of this Congress should be, not passing 
ill-conceived legislation that will only slow down the process even 
more.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman.
  I rise today in strong support of the REINS Act. This bill is about 
representative democracy, transparency, and accountability. The concept 
is simple: any new proposed regulatory rule written by the Federal 
bureaucracy that has an estimated economic impact greater than $100 
million must first come here before the Congress for an up-or-down vote 
before implementation.
  To get our economy moving, to create jobs, to strengthen the jobs we 
have now, and to raise the standard of living of all, we need to 
address the impediments to growth--taxes, regulations, health care 
costs, and energy costs. The simple truth is Federal regulations have 
increased the cost of doing business and contributed to job loss and 
stifled new job creation. Even the President has acknowledged this when 
he appeared in this Chamber to speak to the American people.

                              {time}  1450

  According to the Small Business Administration, Federal regulations 
cost our economy $1.75 trillion a year.
  This negative impact is something small business owners, including 
farmers, have told me time and again as I have traveled across the 137 
towns in my district. Something must be done. It really comes down to 
judgment. We want to get these key decisions right. It's about 
balancing competing priorities. In the process, certainly we want to 
hear the advice of our subject matter experts in the bureaucracy, but 
the decision should fall to the people's representatives who can be 
held accountable to them, not unelected, faceless bureaucrats.
  It's far past time for some transparency and accountability. It's far 
past time for the REINS Act. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this bill, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Government Oversight 
Committee, Mr. Gerry Connolly.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, for the 173rd time this year our friends on the other 
side have brought another anti-environmental, anti-public health bill 
to the floor. For good reason, this House majority has been identified 
as the most stridently anti-environmental Congress in history in a 
tragic refutation of Republicans' heretofore historic commitment to 
conservation and public safety.
  The REINS Act, like the Regulatory Accountability Act passed last 
week, has a poetic finality as it would block any and all progressive 
regulations largely the legacy of Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Under 
Teddy Roosevelt's administration, in response to appalling food 
processing conditions described in Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' 
Congress reacted and passed the first comprehensive food safety 
regulation. One hundred years later, the REINS Act, on the floor today, 
would block even the most commonsense regulations which Congress 
mandated just last session--new standards to protect Americans from 
deadly contamination by Chinese and Mexican imported foods. The REINS 
Act is a worthy piece of legislation for those among us who actually 
believe that Chinese factory farms should ship contaminated, 
uninspected food directly to American dinner tables.
  President Teddy Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act, written by a 
Republican Congressman, Congressman Lacey of Ohio, to protect the Grand 
Canyon--and thank God they did--when Congress at that time refused to 
designate it as a National Park. The REINS Act would prevent Federal 
land management agencies from issuing regulations to protect America's 
greatest places from degradation by mining and off-road vehicles.
  The REINS Act also would block all regulations issued subsequent to 
Teddy Roosevelt's administration, including such landmark bills as the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wagner Labor Relations Act, and 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Along with the Regulatory 
Accountability Act, which the House approved last week, the REINS Act 
is the most comprehensive, radical assault on American safety and 
public health in the last century.
  If REINS passes, it will replace the rule of law with the rule of the 
jungle. Our friends on the other side know full well that in 
commonsense language they have masked the inability of the Federal 
Government ever again to issue commonsense regulation to protect public 
health and safety in this country. And that would be a tragedy.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the chairman.
  Over the past year, I've met with hundreds of businesses throughout 
the Eighth District of Pennsylvania, and from each of them I've heard a 
common theme: uncertainty from constant new government regulation is 
impeding their ability and willingness to invest in our economy, expand 
their businesses, and to create jobs. In fact, just last night during a 
town hall, one of my constituents, Gallus Obert, lamented at the fact 
that new and burdensome regulations have driven small businesses--and 
with them, jobs--from Bristol Township in Bucks County.
  This should come as no surprise to any of us. Even President Obama 
admitted on January 18 that his administration's rules have placed 
unnecessary strain on businesses and stifled innovation and stifled job 
growth.
  Today, small businesses spend more than $10,000 per employee to 
comply with Federal regulation. Compliance leads to higher consumer 
costs, lower wages, and reduced hiring. At the same time, the number of 
new rules and regulations continues to grow with each passing year. 
Just as our Tax Code is in need of reform, so is our ballooning 
regulatory system. The REINS Act will provide the American people with 
both congressional oversight and congressional accountability for 
regulations stemming from legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman 
from California, the Honorable George Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank the ranking member 
for yielding.
  The legislation before us today would really destroy the ability of 
the Congress to create new regulations, to create laws to protect the 
health and safety of the American citizens. It would also provide a 
great second bite at the apple for every special interest in this

[[Page H8216]]

country that doesn't like the regulations to protect clean water and 
safe drinking water and the health and safety of our workers and our 
children at play.
  If you're wondering what it would look like when we wipe out the 
health and safety protections for Americans, you need to look no 
further than the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, where an 
explosion ripped through the mine and killed 29 miners in April of this 
year. That mine was operated as if there were no safety regulations. 
They treated their workers as if there were no mine safety rules at all 
because they overruled all of those regulations through criminal 
activity, through illegal activity, and those miners were forced to 
work with essentially none of the value of health and safety 
regulations designed to protect their lives.
  And what happened in that mine without those regulations and without 
the benefit of those safety protections? An explosion ripped through 
that mine, traveling 2,000 feet per second, and it consumed the lives 
of 29 miners. Twenty-nine workers died, and their families will never 
be the same.
  That's what happens when you take away the basic worker protections 
intended to make our economy function and to keep our workers safe. And 
that's what this bill on the floor today would do.
  Now it's even more interesting that the man who broke the laws, 
created that system of no regulations for the miners in the Upper Big 
Branch Mine for his own personal benefit and the benefit of that of the 
corporation and at the expense of his workers, may be getting back into 
the mining business. Donald Blankenship got an $86 million ``golden 
parachute'' after 29 mine workers died in West Virginia. And now he 
wants to open a new mine. People who live in coal-mining States like 
Kentucky should be aware that a serial violator of basic mine safety 
laws is coming to your State soon seeking to operate a mine. Mine 
companies under his leadership have engaged in dangerous and deadly 
practices that would pose a threat to mine workers in your State.
  In the 2 years preceding the explosion of the Massey Company mines, 
they were cited over 10,000 times a year for violations. Under this 
provision, the coal mines come into Congress, they get the regulations, 
they cease to exist, and they can go on their way, and there won't be 
10,000 citations for the violation of occupational health and safety to 
protect those miners, and other miners will lose their lives like those 
in the Upper Big Branch Mine.
  I say to my colleagues in this House, you must defeat this incredibly 
offensive bill for every American, and you must do so in the name of 
these 29 mine workers who were killed in the Upper Big Branch Mine in 
West Virginia. They died because a ruthless mine owner gamed the 
system. Let us not have them game the system in the Congress of the 
United States.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for 
yielding me this time and I commend both him and the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for bringing this bill to the floor to us at this 
time.
  Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in his 
speech to the Jobs Summit a few months ago said, ``Taken collectively, 
the regulatory activity now underway is so overwhelmingly beyond 
anything we have ever seen that we risk moving this country away from a 
government of the people to a government of regulators.''
  I want to straighten out one thing, Mr. Chairman. This bill does not 
do away with any of the thousands and thousands of laws and regulations 
that are already on the book. It applies only to new regulations, which 
will cost businesses and the consumer over $100 million each. I think 
the American people would be very surprised if they thought the 
Congress did not already act on legislation and laws that would cost 
our economy that much money.
  We've heard estimates today by the SBA that rules and regulations 
cost small businesses almost $2 trillion a year, and anywhere from 
$8,000 to $10,000 per employee. We have so many thousands and thousands 
of laws and rules and regulations on the books today, Mr. Chairman, 
that they haven't even designed a computer that can keep up with them, 
much less a human being. People are out there every day violating laws 
that they didn't even know were in existence.

                              {time}  1500

  The thousands and thousands of rules and regulations that we have 
today make it more difficult to run and maintain a business than at any 
other time in this country's history, and they're the cause of why so 
many small businesses and medium-size businesses are going under or 
being forced to merge and why the big keep getting bigger in almost 
every industry.
  The REINS Act is a very modest attempt to end Washington's almost 
unchecked regulatory power. And it would apply only to regulations 
which cost over $100 million annually, so there is nothing even close 
to being radical about this bill.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, this very 
moderate and reasonable bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored at this time to recognize the 
former Speaker of the House, the leader, the gentlewoman from 
California, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today to oppose this bill, the so-called REINS Act, and to 
urge my colleagues to act now on behalf of jobs for America's workers. 
Jobs are the lifeblood of our economic growth and that of the middle 
class, which is the backbone of our democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, for more than 330 days the Republican majority has 
failed to put forward a clear jobs agenda, choosing instead to propose 
initiatives that undermine job creation and only benefit the special 
interests. Today, as we approach the end of this year, Republicans have 
again refused to vote to expand the payroll tax cut for the middle 
class and unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own. They risk the economic security really 
of all of us--certainly the 99 percent--but we're all in this together, 
as our President has said.
  Democrats have been clear: We must not go home for the holidays 
without extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance 
benefits. We shouldn't be leaving hardworking Americans high and dry 
over this holiday season without doing their work.
  This challenge poses a question: Why are we here? Republicans have 
chosen to be here for massive tax cuts for people making over $1 
million a year--not having $1 million; making over $1 million a year--
300,000 Americans. Democrats are here for the 160 million Americans 
facing tax cut uncertainty because of Republican inaction. But 
Democrats are here for everybody, for all Americans, because we all 
benefit from a strong middle class with demand injected into our 
economy to create jobs.
  Indeed, if we fail to act now on the payroll tax cut and unemployment 
insurance, consider the consequences of that reduced demand to our 
economy. At least 600,000 jobs will be lost. Don't take it from me. 
Respective independent economists have stated that. Over 6 million out-
of-work Americans would lose assistance in the beginning of next year.
  Now, consider if we do act--and act we must--putting more than $1,500 
in the pockets of the typical middle class family. And every dollar 
invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of more than $1.50 
in economic growth. What's important about that is what it does to 
inject demand into the economy.
  Money in the pockets of hardworking Americans, that's what we want 
this Congress to pass, instead of being so completely wedded to the 
idea that if we give tax cuts to the top 1 percent there will be a 
trickle-down effect. It hasn't happened.
  As we approach the end of this year, Congress has a responsibility to 
address America's top priority--job creation and economic growth. It's 
time for us to put the interests of working people ahead of the special 
interests. We must act now to reignite the American Dream and build 
ladders of success

[[Page H8217]]

for anyone willing to work hard and play by the rules, to remove 
obstacles of participation for those who wish to do that. We must spur 
our economy, put people to work, and strengthen our middle class.
  Now, we should not go home for the holidays without passing the 
middle income tax--the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and 
SGR. And there are other issues that need to be addressed that affect 
America's great middle class.
  Mr. Chairman, Christmas is coming; the goose is getting fat; please 
to put a dollar in a worker's hand.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this REINS Act and to get to 
work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the 
American people. Only then will we increase demand in our economy, 
create jobs, promote economic growth, and put money into the pockets of 
160 million Americans. Think of the difference that will make instead 
of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth, 
is not in furtherance of job creation, is not in furtherance of 
strengthening the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy. 
We can't go home without the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits 
for all Americans who need them, who have lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 10, the REINS Act, because America's 
job creators are buried in red tape and need certainty from the Federal 
Government in order to create jobs. This bill would provide that.
  You know, when I travel up and down eastern and southeastern Ohio, I 
hear a recurring theme from the businesses that I meet with: Government 
overregulation is strangling their ability to hire new employees, 
expand their businesses, innovate, and compete.
  Today it costs a business over $10,000 per employee just to comply 
with current Federal regulations. This administration that claims it 
believes in reducing the burden on small business is in the process of 
adding another $67 billion worth of new regulations this year alone.
  This administration is burying small businesses, and enough is 
enough. The REINS Act will simply return control of the regulatory 
process to the American people, who are fed up with unelected 
bureaucrats stopping job creation and delaying true economic recovery.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to our 
final speaker, Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, who is 
finishing out a brilliant career.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 4\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank our great ranking member for allowing me this 
time.
  It is ironic; we're here today debating a bill supported by those in 
the Congress who won't cut taxes for the middle class, but won't budge 
when it comes to making permanent the tax cuts for the very wealthy.
  Why are we not here today talking about extending the payroll tax 
cuts? Why are we not here talking about extending employment benefits? 
Why are we not working on a jobs bill? That's what we should be doing.
  This Congress cannot--and I echo the words of our leader. This 
Congress cannot leave for the holidays without ensuring jobless 
Americans have the security of unemployment benefits that will make 
their Christmas, their holiday, the rest of their year livable.
  I know firsthand what it's like to fall on hard times and need a hand 
up.

                              {time}  1510

  Forty years ago, when I was a single mother raising three young 
children--my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old--I was lucky enough to 
have a job; so I didn't need unemployment benefits. But I did need Aid 
for Families With Dependent Children just to make ends meet. My family 
needed the compassion of the government and my fellow citizens just to 
survive. Without that safety net, I don't know what we would have done.
  We cannot abandon people who have been victimized by this sluggish 
economy. These are proud people, who aren't just willing to work; 
they're desperate to work. There are roughly five unemployed Americans 
for every available job. These folks need a life preserver.
  Extending unemployment benefits is not just a moral imperative. It 
will pump life back into the economy. It will give people money for 
their pockets that they can spend in their local communities and in the 
shops and grocery stores and other businesses that they will inhabit 
and support if they have some money in their pockets.
  And I can't believe that there are some on the other side of the 
aisle who have been resisting this extension, sticking their finger in 
the eye of jobless Americans, while protecting lavish tax cuts for 
millionaires and for billionaires. That flies in the face of common 
sense and does violence to the very values of who we are as American 
people.
  One Republican Member even said just recently that, and I quote him, 
he said, ``Congress ought to concentrate on paying people to work, not 
paying people not to work.'' Except his party hasn't lifted a single 
finger to do a single thing about creating jobs in this country. You 
can't pay them to work when there is no work.
  So I ask you, having experienced what it means to have little kids 
that depend on you during hard times, I ask you, do not let these 
families down. Extend unemployment benefits. Pass a big, bold jobs 
bill. Put Americans back to work, and stop wasting time on the REINS 
bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. GERLACH. I thank the chairman. I also want to thank Congressman 
Davis of Kentucky for his great leadership on this important 
legislation.
  While our small business owners are focused on meeting payroll, and 
their employees are working hard making products and delivering for 
customers, unelected bureaucrats in Washington are putting in overtime 
coming up with new rules and regulations.
  In 2010 alone, the Federal Government issued 3,200 new regulations 
and rules. That's roughly nine rules per day. Complying with all these 
regulations costs small business owners, as was mentioned, an estimated 
$10,500 per employee each year. At a time when we are trying to create 
jobs, we need to have better accountability and transparency in 
Congress for the regulatory burdens the Federal Government places on 
businesses as we try to rejuvenate our economy.
  The REINS Act is a commonsense measure that would do just that, 
giving workers and small business owners and others a voice in the 
process of approving regulations that will ultimately affect their 
jobs, their families, and their communities. This legislation would 
make sure that job creators don't have to worry about unelected 
bureaucrats imposing regulations on them without the approval of their 
elected Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the Chairman.
  The REINS Act provides powerful, commonsense regulatory reform. It 
reins in the costly overreach of Federal agencies that stifles job 
creation and slows economic growth.
  If we want to have jobs, we have to help the job creators. This bill 
restores the authority to impose major regulations on those who are 
accountable to the voters, their elected Representatives in Congress.
  Opponents of the bill resist it for two primary reasons. They say, 
number one, it takes too much time for Congress to approve or 
disapprove major regulations. Secondly, they say Congress isn't expert 
enough to understand whether major regulations should be approved or 
disapproved. Both objections amount to one thing: their belief that 
Congress cannot be responsible and accountable for major decisions that 
affect America's economic life.

[[Page H8218]]

  Fortunately, the Framers of the Constitution saw things differently, 
and so do most Americans. The Constitution gives Congress the Federal 
authority to regulate the economy, not the unelected bureaucrats. If 
the Constitution gives the authority to Congress, then Congress should 
be willing to accept the responsibility and the accountability for 
these decisions.
  We should and we will take the time. We should and we will hold 
hearings. We should and we will allow amendments on the floor and votes 
and, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, transparency, something that the 
job creators are not being allowed right now.
  This administration has admitted its failure to consider the costs 
and the benefits when it imposes major new regulations. This 
administration clearly intends to force through the regulatory process 
things that they cannot achieve in the people's Congress. They do not 
want the transparency. They do not want the constituent input, and they 
do not want to have the hearings where experts from all over the 
country can give balanced testimony.
  The American people struggle enough under the Obama administration's 
failed economic policy. It's time for Congress to say, Enough.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act. Let's help the job 
creators and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so called 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Just as the 
authors went through contortions to generate names with a cute acronym, 
so this bill is very . . . This misguided legislation would undermine 
the ability of federal agencies to promulgate and enforce safeguards 
that protect public health and our environment.
  Today again the Majority is showing the American public that they 
don't think we have a jobs crisis in America, and that getting 
Americans back to work is not their top priority. Getting the American 
economy back on track and helping to create jobs is my first, second 
and third priority. Unlike the Majority, I remain committed to creating 
jobs immediately and expanding educational opportunity for all 
Americans.
  The so called REINS Act is legislation in search of a problem. 
Federal agencies cannot create rules and regulations without statutory 
authority that is granted by Congress, and Congress already has the 
ability to overturn agency rules. The REINS Act would require Congress 
to vote within seventy days on all major rules, creating an 
unprecedented level of uncertainty for the vast number of businesses, 
organizations, and other entities that already comply with government 
protections affecting food and drug safety and air and water pollution.
  The REINS Act puts politics above the safety and health of the 
American people. We should let the scientists and experts in the 
agencies develop and enforce rules like the Clean Air and Clean Water 
Acts that protect all Americans from toxic air pollution and water-
borne illness. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, today, December 7th, is the 70th anniversary 
of the brutal sneak attack by the Imperial Empire of Japan on Pearl 
Harbor, which unleashed America's involvement in World War II. Victory 
over Fascism would come four years later. On this day recalling Pearl 
Harbor, the House Republicans are bringing to the floor their own sneak 
attack on America's government, and how it works to protect the safety, 
security, health and welfare of the American people.
  We already have in place today an effective mechanism by which 
Congress can overturn regulations by government agencies that are 
judged to be unjustified, overly broad, too harsh, excessively 
expensive or not in the public interest. There is in place today a 
court of appeal for bad regulations. That process is called the 
Congressional Review Act, and it provides expedited consideration by 
Congress of a measure to veto an offending rule. If Members of Congress 
have issues with regulatory overreach by an agency, there is a 
constitutional remedy in place today to stop that agency. Moreover, 
Congress can pass limits on the agency funding to curtail unwise 
activities.
  But that is not enough for the House Republicans. They want to 
cripple the Executive Branch and its regulatory agencies altogether. 
They do so in this bill, by changing the burden of proof in the ability 
of agencies to develop and implement rules that are developed, in the 
first instance, pursuant to laws enacted by Congress. These are not 
rogue agencies; they are implementing policy and directives that 
Congress has passed and the President has signed into law.
  But H.R. 10 says that no major rule can become law unless and until 
Congress passes--and the President signs--a joint resolution approving 
the specific regulation. In other words, nothing happens unless 
Congress says it is OK--and that means nothing will happen.
  Congress is an institution where we cannot even pass all the 
individual bills funding the government by the start of the fiscal 
year. The last time that happened was in 1994, and it has happened only 
three times since 1948. With that track record, it is not credible to 
assert that Congress can process hundreds of major rules by government 
agencies in a timely fashion.
  The deadlock that we see in Congress this year will become perpetual 
gridlock for the functioning of the Executive Branch and independent 
regulatory agencies.
  One suspects, in fact, that this is the true intent of those 
supporting H.R. 10: to destroy the workings of our government. And it 
is for this reason that I wholeheartedly oppose this bill.
  No special interest should be powerful enough to eclipse the public 
interest--but this bill lets the special interests who are being 
regulated win every time.
  If this bill were law, all of the historic legislation we passed into 
law during the Obama presidency would be vulnerable to re-litigation by 
powerful special interests as agencies work to put into place the rules 
to implement those laws. Just this year alone, at risk would be rules 
that prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against 
people with pre-existing conditions; rules that ban the marketing of 
tobacco products to children; rules that improve toy safety and reduce 
lead in products; and rules that require higher fuel economy standards 
for cars and reduce mercury and other toxic emissions from power 
plants.
  These are the protections the authors of H.R. 10--and their corporate 
backers--want to stop.
  I believe profoundly that government is a positive force that serves 
its people--and this is what H.R. 10 is really attacking. This is why 
H.R. 10 is so offensive to our constitutional system.
  In the great debate over the size and scope and role of government--
which is a very legitimate and important discussion--the rhetoric from 
the Republicans that has gained the most traction is that regulations 
from Washington are ``job killers,'' and that these agencies must be 
stopped before they kill more jobs again.
  But this is a lie. David Brooks, a very conservative columnist, 
assessed these issues this week in the New York Times:

       Over the past 40 years, small business leaders have 
     eloquently complained about the regulatory burden. And they 
     are right to. But it's not clear that regulations are a major 
     contributor to the current period of slow growth.
       The Bureau of Labor Statistics asks companies why they have 
     laid off workers. Only 13 percent said regulations were a 
     major factor. That number has not increased in the past few 
     years. According to the bureau, roughly 0.18 percent of the 
     mass layoffs in the first half of 2011 were attributable to 
     regulations.
       Some of the industries that are the subject of the new 
     rules, like energy and health care, have actually been doing 
     the most hiring. If new regulations were eating into 
     business, we'd see a slip in corporate profits. We are not.
       There are two large lessons here. First, Republican 
     candidates can say they will deregulate and, in some areas, 
     that would be a good thing. But it will not produce a short- 
     term economic rebound because regulations are not a big 
     factor in our short-term problems.
       Second, it is easy to be cynical about politics and to say 
     that Washington is a polarized cesspool. And it's true that 
     the interest groups and the fund-raisers make every 
     disagreement seem like a life-or-death struggle. But, in 
     reality, most people in government are trying to find a 
     balance between difficult trade-offs. Whether it's 
     antiterrorism policy or regulatory policy, most substantive 
     disagreements are within the 40 yard lines.
       Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of us 
     would like. They are not tanking the economy.

  H.R. 10 is a dangerous bill. It is a direct attack on how our 
government works to protect the public interest. It is based on a 
completely false premise.
  H.R. 10, a bill to veto regulations, deserves its own special veto by 
Congress and, if necessary, by the President of the United States.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10, the 
REINS Act. This misguided piece of legislation would do nothing to put 
people back to work, it would do nothing to reinvigorate the economy, 
and it would do nothing to rein in our debt and excessive deficit. 
Worse yet, it would serve to make our government even more 
dysfunctional. By prohibiting all major regulations from going into 
effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval, the REINS 
Act would put up a major roadblock for implementing important consumer 
protections, including regulations which help keep our food safe and 
prevent Wall Street from rascality that could bring our economy to its 
knees again.

[[Page H8219]]

  Supporters of this legislation claim that the Obama administration's 
excessive regulations are crippling our economy. However, the 
conservative columnist David Brooks of The New York Times recently 
pointed out that in a recent poll by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
only 13 percent of companies said regulations were a major factor in 
why they laid off workers. Interestingly, this number has stayed steady 
over time. If overregulation is what is hampering our economy, you 
would expect a big spike in this number. This leads Mr. Brooks to 
conclude that ``Obama's regulations may be more intrusive than some of 
us would like. They are not tanking the economy.'' I would urge all 
members to read this column to help dispel some common myths about the 
impact regulations are having on our economy today.
  It is important to note that Congress already has the authority to 
review regulations before they go into effect. The Congressional Review 
Act of 1996 allows Congress to pass a joint resolution to overturn a 
regulation to block its implementation. Additionally, all regulations 
must be subject to a public comment period, giving this body and 
members of the general public ample time to weigh in with their 
concerns. Given that these safeguards are already in place, it makes 
you wonder if the supporters of the bill seek simply to kill all 
regulations, including those that keep pollution out of our air and 
water, our armed forces safe, our commerce uninterrupted and our foods 
safe to eat.
  H.R. 10 is a crass attempt to stop important consumer protections by 
those who are fundamentally opposed to any government intervention in 
the private sector. I urge all members to oppose this flawed 
legislation, and get back to work doing the business of the American 
people--producing a balanced plan to reduce our deficit, invest in our 
infrastructure, and put the American people back to work.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my 
amendment #6, to H.R. 10, ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Scrutiny'' (REINS). This bill amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA) 
to require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an 
economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails 
to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is 
targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create 
jobs. Under current law Congress can provide oversight and disapprove 
of a promulgated bill.
  My amendment would exempt all rules promulgated by the Department of 
Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and 
Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very 
concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of 
Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency.
  The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and 
complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second-
guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal 
challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and 
delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health 
and safety of millions of Americans at risk.
  The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to 
be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when 
the safety and security of the American people are at risk.
  According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, 
public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly 
impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last 
several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly 
outweighed their costs.
  There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of 
my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it 
more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the 
case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of 
our citizens.
  In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top 
priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies 
foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to 
protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat 
landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.
  Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we 
have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have 
been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 
do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped 
push the United States forward in how protect our nation. Continuing to 
make advance in Homeland security and intelligence is the best way to 
combat the threats we still face.
  The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of 
duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have 
to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the 
protection of our cyber security.
  In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. 
The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating 
disruption of the operation of information systems for critical 
infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and 
national security of the United States.
  We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to 
reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be 
exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our 
Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that 
such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, 
manageable, and cause the least possible damage.
  Like other national security challenges in the post 9/11 era, the 
cyber threat is multifaceted and without boundaries. Some cyber 
attackers are foreign nations that utilize their military or 
intelligence-gathering operations, whereas others are either operating 
alone or are connected to terrorist groups. In addition, there are 
cyber threats that are international or domestic criminal enterprises.
  According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number 
of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to US-CERT has 
increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber 
incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 
2009 (over a 400 percent increase).
  The four most prevalent types of cyber incidents and events reported 
to US-CERT during FY 2009 were malicious code; improper usage; 
unauthorized access and incidents warranting further investigations 
(unconfirmed malicious or anomalous activity).
  Critical infrastructure in the Nation is composed of public and 
private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public 
health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, 
information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and 
finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.
  With cyberspace as their central nervous system--it is the control 
system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands 
of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber 
optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the 
healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential 
to both our economy and our national security.
  In light of an attack that threatens the United State's cyber 
protection, Homeland Security officials may need to issue emergency 
regulations quickly. Attacks can be sent instantly in cyber space, and 
the protection of our critical infrastructure cannot be mitigated by 
cumbersome bureaucracy.
  As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about 
vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in 
America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.
  More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston 
in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for 
the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports 
in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of 
Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along 
our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the 
direction of DHS.
  If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the 
port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able 
to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without 
being subject to the constraints of this bill.
  The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only 
because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new 
information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency 
preparedness and response.
  Take for example U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which 
identifies prosecutorial discretion as ``the authority of an agency 
charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the 
law against a particular individual.'' When ICE favorably exercises 
prosecutorial discretion, it ``essentially decides not to assert the 
full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a 
given case.''
  In the civil immigration enforcement context, prosecutorial 
discretion may take the form of a broad range of discretionary 
enforcement decisions, including: focusing enforcement resources on 
particular administrative violations or conduct; deciding whom to stop, 
question, or arrest for an administrative violation; deciding whether a 
suspect will be detained or released on bond; and granting deferred 
action, granting parole, staying a final order of removal, or other 
alternative to obtaining a formal order of removal.
  Let me be clear; prosecutorial discretion is not amnesty; it is done 
on a case by case basis to ensure that the limited resources ICE has to 
work with are put toward removing those who pose a threat to the safety 
and security of the American people. Allowing ICE to

[[Page H8220]]

identify and focus on priorities strengthens immigration enforcement by 
targeting the right individuals.
  Furthermore, ICE Director John Morton issued a memorandum in March of 
2011 that outlined the enforcement policies for the agency. Among the 
priority enforcement cases were aliens posing a risk to national 
security or public safety, recent illegal entrants, and those who are 
fugitives or have a history of violating U.S. immigration law.
  Director Morton's memorandum indicates that prosecutorial discretion 
is by no means widespread, blanket amnesty for undocumented aliens; it 
is a law enforcement method used by many agencies, including ICE, under 
Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, prosecutorial 
discretion allows ICE to allocate its resources to ensure their 
enforcement efforts provide for the safety and security of the nation. 
Why would this rule need additional scrutiny?
  And another major impact rule deals with the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Fee Schedule the final rule will provide DHS with 
an average of $209 million in FY2010 and FY2011 annual fee revenue, 
based on a projected annual fee-paying volume of 4.4 million 
immigration benefit requests and 1.9 million requests for biometric 
services, over the fee revenue that would be collected under the 
current fee structure. The increased revenue will be used to fund the 
full cost of processing immigration benefit applications and associated 
support benefits; the full cost of providing similar benefits to asylum 
and refugee applicants; and the full cost of similar benefits provided 
to others at no change. These are the sorts of rules that are going to 
be needlessly hindered by this Legislation.
  Again, instead of focusing on jobs we are focusing on regulations 
that Congress already has the power to review and prevent its 
implementation if and when necessary.
  There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted 
with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is 
important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with 
hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist 
attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a 
nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.
  On any given day the city of Houston and cities across the United 
States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: 
terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.
  Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. 
Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the 
interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as 
operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 
sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to 
protect the safety and security of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to 
ensure that regulations that save lives that are promulgated by the 
Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this 
legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). It 
is unfortunate but not surprising that we are voting on this 
legislation today. We are just weeks away from millions of people being 
kicked off unemployment insurance and Medicare providers having their 
payments cut by 27% making it difficult for seniors to find a doctor or 
get access to care. Instead of dealing with those pressing issues we 
are voting on another ideological Republican message bill. More false 
promises from the Republican House Leadership that jobs will 
miraculously appear if we just eliminate rules that keep our food safe 
to eat, our air and water clean, and our cars safe to drive.
  The REINS Act is aimed at making government less efficient and less 
responsive to the issues facing our country. The legislation would make 
it nearly impossible for the government to pass regulations. Any rule 
developed by an agency through the extensive notice and comment process 
that we currently use would now be forced through both houses of 
Congress, where majorities would have to affirmatively vote within 70 
days or the rule would disappear. Under the REINS Act, proposed rules 
would be subject to even more rounds of approval in a new system biased 
to ensure that these rules fail to be adopted.
  Did any one of the Republican cosponsors of this legislation ever 
take a class in government or civics when they were in high school? 
Passing a law requires approval of the House, Senate, and then the 
President. Congress then delegates the relevant rulemaking to the 
agencies because these agencies have the manpower, time and expertise 
to develop the appropriate rules. This legislation turns the 
relationship between the three branches of government, and our entire 
regulatory system, on its head.
  Our economy needs a level playing field that protects consumers and 
small business from corporate and other special interests. Science-
based regulation helps to create a stable and fair marketplace for 
consumers and businesses alike. The REINS Act would further empower big 
business to challenge regulations that they disagree with regardless of 
the benefits to the public health and welfare. This is yet another 
Republican attack on the American middle class intended to please their 
corporate benefactors. I cannot support this legislation and I urge my 
fellow members to join me in voting ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (REINS 
Act), which will ensure that major policy decisions are made by the 
people's representatives in Congress and not by unelected bureaucrats.
  The bill requires that major regulations cannot go into effect until 
approved by Congress. Under current law, these economically significant 
regulations go into effect without further action by Congress. This 
legislation's sensible reform has important implications for the 
consideration of legislation that authorizes regulations that result in 
mandatory spending or other budgetary effects. The Congressional Budget 
Office's (CBO) longstanding policy is to score legislation providing 
such regulatory authority with the full budgetary effects of 
implementing that legislation. The rule governing consideration of H.R. 
10 added a provision to the bill, titled the Budgetary Effects of Rules 
Subject to Section 802 of Title 5, United States Code, that ensures 
this practice continues.
  Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is 
enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or 
receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary 
effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead, 
those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution 
approving the major regulation. While this approach would maintain the 
principle that the legislation that actually causes the budgetary 
effects would be charged with the costs incurred, in practice it would 
create potential problems. Because the REINS Act waives all points of 
order against the approval resolutions, there would be a potential 
circumstance where new mandatory spending or other budgetary effects 
would escape Congressional budget enforcement. This provision retains 
the current practice of scoring the budgetary impact to the legislation 
that creates the rulemaking authority and ensures new spending created 
by that legislation would be fully subject to budget enforcement.
  I am pleased that this potential problem has been addressed, and I 
strongly support this effort to restrain Washington's regulatory 
overreach and create a more conducive environment for job creation.


           Description of the Ryan Amendment to the REINS Act

  The Ryan Amendment self-executed in the rule governing debate for 
H.R. 10 amends section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 907) (BBEDCA) in order to ensure 
that any budgetary costs associated with approving or disapproving 
regulations authorized by legislation are properly accounted for under 
the congressional budget process. Section 257 of BBEDCA defines the 
budgetary baseline calculated by the Congressional Budget Office and 
the Office of Management and Budget. This amendment requires that the 
baseline include any changes in budget authority, outlays, or receipts 
resulting from regulations necessary to implement a law. Consistent 
with this requirement, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office 
of Management and Budget will continue to score legislation that 
provides the legal authority to promulgate implementing regulations 
with the budgetary implications resulting from the regulations.
  Absent this provision, CBO has indicated that once the REINS Act is 
enacted, it would no longer score the budget authority, outlays, or 
receipts authorized by a statute to that statute if those budgetary 
effects are contingent on the adoption of a major regulation. Instead, 
those budgetary effects would be charged to the joint resolution 
approving the major regulation. This amendment maintains the current 
law practice for scoring the original authorizing legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, in recent weeks, the House of Representatives 
has taken up three major bills designed to address concerns about 
executive agency overreach in regulatory proposals.
  I supported the first two bills--H.R. 3010, the Regulatory 
Accountability Act, and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I 
believe they would have improved the current regulatory approval 
scheme. The bills alternatively would have codified the use of critical 
cost-benefit analyses and the consideration of less costly regulatory 
alternatives, and helped to ensure the opportunity for additional 
public participation, especially in regard to small businesses. Both 
bills contained provisions

[[Page H8221]]

that would have helped to address the concerns of my State, which has 
felt under siege in recent months by a raft of regulatory actions 
affecting the coal industry and emanating from the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Today, the House is considering H.R. 10, the Regulations in Need of 
Scrutiny Act. This bill would require the Congress to approve all major 
rules projected to cost $100 million or more. I believe this is, at the 
very least, an impractical idea, given the number of rules that would 
have to be considered in the midst of other legislative business. It 
also raises serious questions about the legal status of rules 
promulgated by the executive agencies and approved by the Congress, 
subjecting even the least controversial rules to potential litigation 
in the courts. In addition, it subjects the Congressional schedule to 
the whims of the executive agencies and their regulatory agenda.
  But worse still, I believe such a requirement could be detrimental to 
the functions of government, the certainty required by business, and 
the stability desired for the economy. Considering the inability of the 
current Congress to pass important and even popular legislation, the 
requirements of this bill would almost certainly put rules, even rules 
supported by the business community that endorses this bill and rules 
that may be promulgated by future Administrations more favorable to 
business, in complete limbo.
  In this Congress, bipartisan efforts like the surface transportation 
reauthorization have become mired in partisan squabbles; the Federal 
Aviation Administration suffered a partial shutdown when a mere 
extension of its authority was tangled in a partisan mess. When matters 
of such importance to our nation, matters that are clearly necessary to 
get our country back on the right economic track, are sidelined 
indefinitely, I question whether it is wise to subject so many rules to 
the uncertainty of the Congressional approval process. What's more, 
when one of the most stringent complaints about the current regulatory 
process centers on concerns that proposed regulations are politically 
motivated, it makes no sense to further subject them to the whims of an 
inherently political institution.
  So, while I support critical Congressional oversight of executive 
agency rules, more public input in the rulemaking process, better cost-
benefit analyses of the impact on businesses large and small, and the 
consideration of less costly regulatory alternatives, I must decline to 
support H.R. 10.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, the REIN Act is the culmination of all 
of the anti-regulation, anti-government and especially anti-President 
Obama legislation that has been brought to this body since January 
2009.
  All of the political gymnastics we and the White House have been put 
through has made it extremely difficult for our President who tried 
very hard to craft bipartisan solutions to be able to pass much of his 
agenda. I am glad that he is now doing whatever he can through 
executive orders, because yes--our country cannot wait.
  Even today, with only a few weeks before the deadlines, our 
Republican colleagues are blocking extending the payroll tax to keep 
families from losing about 1,000 badly needed dollars next year, they 
are blocking the extension of unemployment benefits which not only 
helps families, including children, but is clearly one of the best 
stimuli for our struggling economy; and they are blocking even just a 
temporary fix to cuts in fairer payments to the doctors who take care 
of our elderly and people with disabilities.
  But that was not bad enough, now comes the REIN Act to prevent 
government from fulfilling its critical role to provide services, and 
to protect the safety, health and wellbeing of people of this country.
  They claim they are doing this to get Congress to do their job. Well 
as far as I can see Congress was doing their job pretty well in the 
recent Congresses, but that all ground to a halt with this one.
  In all of the over 9 months of this Congress the Republican 
leadership has talked a lot about jobs but done absolutely nothing to 
create even one and they have held up or weakened laws that would have 
created the jobs the American people need.
  In fact they have wasted these nine months by insisting on bringing 
legislation to the floor with rhetoric that would keep the fringe 
elements of their party happy, but go absolutely nowhere and do 
absolutely nothing.
  This is yet another bad bill, with a bad intent that has wasted our 
time.
  The people of this country want government to be there to protect 
their homes, their money and their retirement, to keep them safe at 
work and in their neighborhoods, to provide them with access to quality 
health care, to ensure that their children will have a sound education 
and meaningful opportunities.
  I ask my colleagues to do what the people are calling on us to: 
create jobs, extend the payroll reduction and unemployment insurance 
and pay our doctors a fairer fee for their services; and to stop 
attacking these necessary functions of government. They not only 
undermine the role of government, but they are weakening our country 
and making us the laughing stock of the world.
  They should withdraw the REIN Act, but since they won't, we need to 
vote it down and get on with the important issues our fellow Americans 
want us to address.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so-
called ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act 
of 2011.''
  Federal agencies issue rules based on statues created when Congress 
and the President enact legislation. These agencies devote months and 
even years conducting research, gathering expertise from skilled 
professionals, and seeking public input when crafting major rules. 
Congress relies on these agencies to promulgate these rules, because 
they have expertise in a given area. However, this bill would require 
that congressional politics play a part in deciding complicated rules 
and regulations. By preventing agencies from enacting rules, this bill 
could undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public's health 
and safety.
  Supporters of this legislation make the anecdotal claim that this 
bill is needed to stop a plethora of regulations. They forget that 
Congress currently has considerable power, even the responsibility at 
times, to alter and influence federal rulemaking. Congress has the 
power under various means to review and reject rules issued by 
executive agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may 
pass a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of 
receiving the rule. If the President signs the resolution of 
disapproval, the regulation is not implemented. Additionally, it is 
important to note that federal agencies are only issuing rules to 
implement statutes that have been enacted by Congress. Federal agencies 
must adhere to the statute when promulgating a rule. Congress can also 
impose restrictions on agency rulemaking through the appropriations 
process by preventing agencies from using funds to implement or enforce 
certain rules. Congress may also revamp rulemaking procedures. In 
addition to the Congressional Review Act, Congress has enacted the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. All of these bills reform the procedures for 
federal rulemaking by federal agencies.
  This bill before us today is unnecessary and potentially harmful to 
the public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, as an administrator and policymaker at the 
local, state, and federal levels, I have often seen the value of 
common-sense regulations that save lives. I have also seen the 
challenges associated with cumbersome regulations that can sometimes 
appear to be bureaucracy at its worst. However, in my experience, 
regulations tend to be less stringent than necessary rather than overly 
strict. While I am very open to discussing how we can make regulations 
more effective and efficient, I am extremely disappointed with the 
anti-regulatory agenda of the House leadership.
  Congress today considers yet another attack on our government's basic 
ability to enforce laws that protect public health and the environment. 
Every major law requires enforcement by the executive branch of 
government, and enforcement requires agencies to write regulations that 
explain and make public how that agency is going to enforce the law. 
The bills under consideration by the House will stop the regulatory 
process in its tracks. Agencies will not be able to enforce new laws or 
complete updates to regulations as required by existing laws, such as 
the Clean Air Act.
  H.R. 10, the REINS Act, requires both the House and the Senate to 
vote on every major regulation before that regulation can be enforced, 
providing only seventy days to do it. This will allow either house of 
Congress to effectively veto any major regulation that would enforce a 
law already passed by Congress merely by taking no action.
  H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act, adds additional 
requirements to the regulatory process and overrides standards in 
existing laws that protect public health and safety. This bill would 
require agencies to analyze not only the direct costs of regulatory 
changes, but also vaguely defined indirect costs, as well as costs and 
benefits of potential alternative rules. The bill requires agencies in 
nearly every case to use the least costly rule, instead of balancing 
costs and benefits as required in existing laws. This standard will 
make it nearly impossible for an agency to regulate at all, because 
there is always an alternative that could be less costly, even if the 
public at large bears the much higher cost of less protective rules.
  H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, expands the review that 
agencies must conduct before issuing new regulations to include an 
evaluation of all reasonably foreseeable ``indirect'' costs of 
regulations, especially to small

[[Page H8222]]

businesses. Virtually any proposed agency action--even a guidance 
document designed to help a business comply with a rule--could be 
subject to a lengthy regulatory process. The additional analysis would 
make any change to a regulation even more difficult. There are already 
more than 110 separate procedural requirements in the rulemaking 
process; additional review and analysis will not improve regulations, 
but merely add to delay.
  These bills add additional steps on top of the current process. For 
major regulations the process, from writing a regulation to its 
enforcement, can already take four to eight years. If Congress feels at 
the end of that process that a regulation is inappropriate in any way, 
it already has the authority to vote to overturn that regulation and 
direct the agency to start over. These bills are unnecessary.
  It's time for Congress to move beyond a debate about repealing 
regulations and focus instead on how to make them more effective and 
efficient. I strongly oppose these three bills that do not make any 
changes for the better, but instead jeopardize important progress on 
protecting health and safety.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules, 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 112-311 shall be considered as adopted, shall be 
considered as an original bill for purpose of further amendment under 
the 5-minute rule, and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 10

       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 2011''.

     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 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 sections 804(2)(A), 804(2)(B), and 
     804(2)(C);
       ``(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;
       ``(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 
     as provided in section 802(b)(2). The report of the 
     Comptroller General shall include an assessment of the 
     agency's compliance with procedural steps required by 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(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 section 801(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 
     three legislative days; and
       ``(B) in the case of the Senate, within three 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 H8223]]

       ``(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 is 
     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)(1) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) 
     shall be referred to the committees in each House of Congress 
     with jurisdiction.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term submission or 
     publication date means the later of the date on which--
       ``(A) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     section 801(a)(1); or
       ``(B) the nonmajor rule is published in the Federal 
     Register, if so published.
       ``(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 $100,000,000 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 on 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

[[Page H8224]]

       ``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or 
     practice that does not substantially affect the rights or 
     obligations of non-agency parties.

     ``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. __. 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 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 rules 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.''.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order 
except those printed in part B of the report. Each such amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered 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 Mr. Sessions

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-311.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 25, line 18, insert ``, including an analysis of any 
     jobs added or lost, differentiating between public and 
     private sector jobs'' before the semicolon.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to first thank, if I can, the author of this piece of 
legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky, Geoff Davis. Mr. Davis has 
distinguished himself among, not only our colleagues, but also, I 
believe, his strong support of free enterprise and the people of 
Kentucky in doing his job, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here 
to help in that endeavor today.
  I believe that excessive government regulations are a significant 
barrier to the creation of private sector jobs in America today. This 
Congress has made job creation a priority. As a matter of fact, we had 
the minority leader down talking just a few minutes ago about job 
creation and the priority that it needs to represent. And as a result, 
we must review regulations which stand in the way of not only having 
more jobs, but also the overuse of rules and regulations that prohibit 
and add to jobs and job creation.

                              {time}  1520

  That proposal that I believe we need to look at is whether the 
benefits outweigh any potential economic harm that might come.
  My amendment requires the agencies submitting the report on a 
proposal Federal rule to include an assessment of anticipated jobs 
gained or lost as a result of its implementation and to specify whether 
those jobs will come from the public or the private sector.
  This assessment would be part of the cost benefit analysis. It would 
be required to be submitted to the Comptroller General and made 
available to each Member of the House prior to our consideration of the 
rule.
  I believe that what we are doing here today is positive, not only a 
benefit to the country in terms of recognizing that rules and 
regulations are burdening our economic engine, but also we are doing 
something about it here today, and I'm very, very proud to be here in 
support of this.
  Earlier this year, I introduced House Resolution 72, and the House 
passed it with a strong bipartisan vote in February. My bill required 
authorizing committees in the House to review existing, pending, and 
proposed regulations through hearings this year and to report back to 
the House with their findings.
  The REINS Act today before us is an extension, I believe, of H. Res. 
72 and is an important measure to ensure that the government does not 
compete against the free enterprise system. And if it does, Congress 
should understand that at the time that we pass our laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this important addition.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. I want to merely start off by recognizing that somewhere 
buried in this amendment is the gentleman from Texas' recognition that 
regulations could or might create jobs. I want to thank him for that.
  There's no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. 
Now, we've talked about this for 2 days. But at our hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee, one of the anti-regulatory bills that we 
considered, we had an American Enterprise Institute witness, 
Christopher DeMuth, from the conservative think tank that AEI is, and 
he stated in his prepared testimony that focus on jobs can lead to 
confusion in regulatory debates and that the employment effects of 
regulation, while important, are indeterminate.
  I must say to my colleagues that that is exactly the same impression 
that I came out of my Judiciary Committee hearing with, and it's the 
same impression that I've come to realize is probably accurate in the 
debate for the last few days on the floor of the House itself.
  I'm concerned about this amendment because it would add to the 
analytical burdens of agencies, the speculative assessment of jobs 
added or lost, and how many of those jobs would be added or lost in the 
public and private sectors.
  For these reasons, I conclude that this amendment would not be 
helpful, and I am unable to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for 
yielding me time, and I also thank him for offering this amendment.
  The bill restores to Congress the accountability for the regulatory 
decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. As Congress makes 
those decisions, one of the most important facts to consider is whether 
new regulations produce jobs or destroy them.
  The amendment guarantees that when agencies submit new regulations to 
Congress, their cost benefit analyses will be made available.
  The amendment also assures that agencies will specifically identify 
regulations' impact on private and public sector jobs. With that 
information, Congress will be in a position to determine whether to 
approve the rules. And the American people will be in a postilion to 
hold Congress accountable for those decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I believe that the case which we're bringing forth today to Congress 
is

[[Page H8225]]

that we believe that jobs should be priority number one for this United 
States Congress and for the American people--not just the middle class, 
but investors and people who want to have great jobs in this country, 
for us to be competitive with the world. For us to do that, we need to 
recognize that people in Washington, D.C., who probably wouldn't 
recognize the free enterprise system if they saw it put rules and 
regulations on people; they don't understand the business; they don't 
understand how they operate; and they sure as heck don't understand why 
it's important to have a free enterprise system, one which is nimble 
and prepared and ready for competition.
  I spent 16 years without missing a day of work in the private sector 
prior to coming to Congress. During those 16 years, I learned firsthand 
about how rules and regulations by the Federal Government and others 
can impede not only us and our ability to add jobs but perhaps more 
importantly, for us to be competitive. And I want to know today those 
people who will support us making sure that we look at a rule and 
regulation and understand what the impact on jobs would be.
  That's what this vote will be. All Members will have an opportunity 
to come down to say, We think that there should be a consideration or 
should not be a consideration, at the time a rule will be written by an 
agency, what will be the impact of that rule. It would elude me to 
understand why someone would not want to include that as part of a cost 
benefit analysis.
  Thus, Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-311.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 45, line 22, insert after the first period the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules

       ``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by 
     the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
     2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule that the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget determines 
     will result in net job creation. This chapter, as in effect 
     before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in 
     Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after 
     such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
       Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the 
     item relating to section 807 the following new item:

808. Exemption for certain rules.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise to support my amendment to this dangerous bill, the REINS Act.
  My amendment is simple. It would exempt any rule that the Office of 
Management and Budget determines would promote job growth from the 
bill's congressional approval requirement, which is very cumbersome.
  The Republican majority claims that job growth is its top priority, 
and if that's the case, then my Republican friends should support this 
amendment. In reality, we all know this bill will not create a single 
job, and as part of the majority's anti-regulatory agenda, will make it 
virtually impossible to implement rules for our health and safety.
  This bill does not fine-tune the regulatory process, as the 
Republicans say. It will do nothing but make the regulatory process 
more bureaucratic and impose unnecessary hurdles for the agencies 
seeking to enact rules that protect our health and safety.
  The majority has a scare tactic--that is that regulations kill jobs, 
and that's nothing but a myth. The National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, which describes itself as the leading small business 
association representing small and independent businesses, does a 
regular survey of small businesses. And it found that the single most 
important problem facing small businesses is poor sales, not 
regulations.
  The REINS Act would delay, if not halt, regulations that are 
necessary for the health and safety of our constituents. Further, the 
bill would slow down regulations that may actually foster job growth. 
Thus, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly 
concerned about job growth, I would encourage them to support this 
amendment.
  I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment because the 
regulations that will help put unemployed Americans back to work should 
take effect without unnecessary delay.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I could not disagree with the gentleman from Georgia more. It's 
obvious which one of us has run a business and which one is talking 
about a business.
  The reality of the regulatory impact on businesses is huge. All you 
have to do is ask small business owners in any of our congressional 
districts if they can get credit because of the newly improved FDIC 
rules on lending. They will tell you they can't. They can't get credit 
because of the new regulations, and banks are being consolidated and 
are going under now. We're finding a rash of environmental regulations 
throughout the Ohio Valley. Machine tool operators, steel mill 
operators and other manufacturers say over and over that they will be 
out of business if the cap-and-trade carbon regulations are imposed by 
the EPA. These are facts. Health care right now is imposing hiring 
freezes with the Affordable Care Act.
  Once again, there is no reason under any circumstances that we should 
exempt major regulations that do, indeed, have a real impact on hiring, 
investment, job creation, and especially on an individual who wants to 
take the risk to start a business.
  Congress should not abdicate its authority any longer regarding these 
rules. We should step up to the plate and be accountable. If we do so, 
jobs will be created as a result.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In response, no, I've never operated a 
business on Wall Street, and I'm not really concerned about Wall Street 
as Wall Street has been getting all of the breaks. This party, the Tea 
Party Republicans, seem hellbent on shifting everything in their 
direction.
  I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am pleased to join my dear friend and 
colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, in 
offering this amendment as the Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment.
  I hold a sign that, I think, speaks to the gist of this amendment, 
``Make It In America.'' A number of us have been on the floor of the 
House on a regular basis talking about creating jobs and about making 
it in America. My good friend from Texas just passed an amendment 
without opposition, and I see no reason why the Jackson Lee-Johnson or 
Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment cannot be accepted in the very same way.
  Bruce Bartlett, one of the senior policy analysts in the Reagan and 
George H.W. Bush administrations, observed that regulatory uncertainty 
is a canard, an invented canard, that allows those who use it 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 
opportunism because regulations don't stop you from creating jobs. In 
actuality, they provide cleaner air; they provide clean food; they 
provide the opportunity of a roadmap so that small and large businesses 
can do their work.
  The Clean Air Act is a shining example. A lot of regulations came out 
of the Clean Air Act. Given that the economy since the Clean Air Act 
was passed

[[Page H8226]]

in 1970 under Richard Milhous Nixon, a Republican, it shows that the 
economy has grown 204 percent and that private sector job creation has 
expanded 86 percent.
  I would ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the Johnson-
Jackson Lee amendment. Let's make it in America. Let's ensure there is 
a regulatory process that exempts any regulation that creates jobs. I 
ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment #2, that I offered 
along with my esteemed colleague Mr. Johnson, to H.R. 10 Regulations 
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). Our amendment would 
exempt the Office of Management and Budget once it is determined that 
the rules they offer will result in net job creation.
  REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require 
Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic 
impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act 
within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted 
directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.
  In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of 
Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as 
member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the 
Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main 
functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.
  If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule, 
it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the 
Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields. 
Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific 
and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of 
certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become 
adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal 
agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to 
effect the change that Americans want. For example extending 
unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet, 
here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our 
economy.
  As we consider REINS, it is important that we not forget that federal 
agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure that 
proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted.
  For every proposed regulation, agencies are required to issue notice 
of proposed rulemakings to the industry and market over which they 
regulate. Those entities then comment on the rules, and they go through 
many rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.
  Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to 
Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of judicial 
review. Arguably, rules and regulations issued by Federal agencies go 
through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and 
passed by Congress.
  Implementing this rule would put a tremendous burden on Congress, and 
to be frank, as members elected by our constituencies to represent 
their interests, our time could be utilized in a much more effective 
manner.
  Instead of debating about oversight authority that Congress already 
has, we should be focusing on the issues that most concern the American 
people, particularly, creating jobs. As our country rebounds from one 
of the most severe economic downturns in our history, it is imperative 
that we make decisions that will enable our economy to grow and, most 
importantly, create jobs. We should be using our judgment in a manner 
that would create American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken 
immigration system. We should be working to implement an orderly 
process for immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves 
documentation, and complements our enforcement efforts to make them 
more effective.
  Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help 
our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation 
taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is 
alive and thriving.
  America is a free enterprise society, and small businesses are part 
of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast portion of Americans. 
We should be ensuring that any consolidation taking place in the 
marketplace does not push out small businesses and render them unable 
to compete.
  In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions 
have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are 
being cut as a result of last year's United-Continental merger. As we 
face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends 
meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of 
mergers such as United-Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no 
more precious jobs are being lost.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up 
here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers--
especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the 
largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in 
American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor 
is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return 
outsourced jobs to American soil.
  Bottom line, Congress has a large responsibility. We carry on our 
shoulders the needs of the American people. Our time here is valuable 
and our work load is great. We should not further burden this body with 
the work that an entire branch of government has already been 
commissioned to do, especially since Congress still has oversight 
authority.
  For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts 
should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole 
should be our priority.
  There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. 
The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing clearly debunked 
the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who 
appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative 
think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . 
. . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the 
employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
  If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans 
back to work. For instance, According to the BlueGreen Alliance, notes: 
``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found 
that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, 
and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with 
these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining 
example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job 
creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''
  Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the 
Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure 
``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong 
economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that 
increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of 
more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.
  The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been 
debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy 
analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed 
``[R]egulatory 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.''
  Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of 
demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for 
not hiring.

  At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor 
Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence 
contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business 
investment.''
  A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found 
that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring 
is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''
  The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of 
its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the 
biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent 
blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher 
materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling 
prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''
  Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they 
need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses, 
observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main 
Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more 
customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our 
customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk 
and more costs onto us from big corporate actors . . . 
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs and get 
our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small 
businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their 
pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free 
reign to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force 
small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to

[[Page H8227]]

the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would point out that Gallup has released a survey that shows that 
one in three small business owners is worried about going out of 
business; and overwhelmingly, the response to this survey across the 
United States points to the uncertainty and the unpredictability caused 
by regulations.
  This bill, the REINS Act, is not antiregulation. It is about more 
transparency and accountability in regulation, and it is about having 
Congress step up to the plate. It's important that we work together to 
restore that trust and confidence in the Congress--that we do our jobs, 
that we stand firm, and that we exercise restraint over the executive 
branch so that it cannot act in scoring itself on whether jobs are 
created.
  Let that be done by the Congress, which is held accountable. Let us 
stand for the vote and be accountable to our citizens.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The amendment carves out of the bill regulations that the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) determines will lead to net job creation.
  The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives OMB to 
manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too 
often, OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's 
congressional approval requirement.
  In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so 
by destroying real, existing jobs and ``creating'' new, hoped-for jobs 
associated with regulatory compliance. For example, some Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules will shut down existing 
power plants. EPA and OMB may attempt to justify that with claims that 
more new, ``green'' jobs will be created as a result.
  In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the 
jobs winners and the jobs losers. And there is no guarantee that all of 
the new, ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist.
  The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It 
does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose 
between new jobs and old jobs.
  Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It 
chooses the way the Framers intended, in which accountability for laws 
with major economic impacts rests with Congress. It rejects the way 
Washington has operated for too long, where there is no accountability 
because decisions are made by unelected agency officials.
  The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-311.
  Mr. SCHRADER. 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 25, line 9, strike ``and''.
       Page 25, insert after line 9 the following (and redesignate 
     provisions accordingly):
       ``(v) a cost-benefit analysis of the rule; and''.
       Page 26, insert after line 11 the following:
       ``(D) Not later than the later of January 1, 2013 or the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of the 
     Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
     2011, each Federal agency shall submit to Congress 
     appropriate criteria for conducting cost-benefit analyses 
     under subparagraph (A)(v) for each rule for which that agency 
     may be required to submit such an analysis.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment is pretty straightforward. The goal here is to 
actually codify some of what has been done here just by Executive order 
to make sure Congress' intent is actually done regardless of what the 
executive branch is considering.
  It basically codifies the cost-benefit analysis in statute that we 
would like to have. As we all know, a lot of times some of our agencies 
get a little overzealous, and some of the cost-benefit analyses that 
they do or don't do do not actually reflect a lot of the real-world 
criteria by which American men and women in businesses actually 
operate. So our goal here is to actually follow through on what is 
already existing law but to just codify it so it's not a huge change.
  There is a little bit more to it. Right now a lot of the independent 
Federal agencies are not subject to this Executive order. Of course, 
this amendment would actually codify that they should be. There is no 
reason any Federal agency should be exempt from giving Americans the 
idea of what it's going to cost and what sort of benefit we're going to 
get out of this at the end of the day.
  Last but not least, I think one of the big pieces that is very, very 
important to know as a veterinarian, a man of science a little bit, are 
the assumptions by which these cost-benefit analyses are done. That 
oftentimes influences the outcome. It's important for the agencies, the 
businesses and, again, others in this country to look at what 
assumptions are being made when these cost-benefit analyses are being 
done. Sometimes they deserve to be challenged, and sometimes questions 
need to be raised. So I think it's extremely important that any cost-
benefit analysis assumptions should be made public and transparent.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I also oppose the amendment. The amendment leaves it to each agency 
to determine how we will conduct the cost-benefit analyses of any 
regulations. This is regrettable. Each agency will be tempted to design 
rules that it can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh 
costs. In past administrations when we've seen this attempt done, there 
was a divergence of standard; there was no continuity and virtually no 
reduction in the regulations or understanding of this across the whole 
of government.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December 
2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses. This improves quality, and it prevents deceptive 
actions by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort. 
Similarly, under executive order 12866, the President has long required 
agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. The 
amendment undermines that requirement, too.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The amendment leaves it to each agency to determine how it will 
conduct cost-benefit analyses of new regulations. This is regrettable. 
Each agency will be tempted to design rules that it can manipulate to 
claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs.
  The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December 
2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-
benefit analyses. This improves quality and prevents deceptive actions 
by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.
  Similarly, under Executive Order 12866, the President has long 
required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit 
analyses. The amendment undermines that requirement, too.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H8228]]

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be postponed.

                              {time}  1540


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-311.
  Mr. McKINLEY. 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 42, line 23, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would reduce the threshold for a major rule from $100 million or more 
to $50 million. This would ensure greater accountability.
  Let's keep this in perspective. I base this amendment on legislation 
that has already been adopted by the House--in 1995--with bipartisan 
support which lowered the threshold to $50 million. It passed with a 
vote of 277-141 with much of today's leadership who were here at the 
time supporting it.
  Also, in perspective, in fiscal year 2011, only 2.6 percent of all 
the rules were classified as ``major,'' and in 2010 it was only 3 
percent that met that criteria. Keep that in consideration. Would you 
be satisfied with only 2 or 3 percent of your food being inspected or 2 
or 3 percent of the aircraft which we fly?
  According to the Small Business Administration, in 2008 it cost the 
economy $1.75 trillion in regulations. We just went through a gut-
wrenching supercommittee that tried to reduce $1.5 trillion, but yet we 
let, every year, hundreds of billions of dollars pass through without 
involvement of Congress.
  Since January of this year, we have already seen 67,000 more pages of 
regulation, 88 million hours, man-hours, have been lost by businesses 
and employers trying to respond to the regulatory reform. None of this 
has had congressional oversight or approval.
  Canada realizes there needs to be more accountability, and they 
require all rules and regs of $50 million or more to come before their 
legislative body.
  Congress, having jurisdiction of only 2 or 4 percent may be better 
than nothing, but I believe America deserves better. We need a system 
of checks and balances. No wonder the American people have lost their 
confidence in Congress and the Federal Government. I'm hopeful that the 
chairman will see the issues that I have raised here today and work 
with me on future legislation to correct that.
  With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for 
yielding me time.
  I share my colleague's desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to 
major regulations and appreciate his interest in the subject.
  I know that recent major regulations have hit West Virginia and the 
gentleman's constituents particularly hard. The Environmental 
Protection Agency's major regulations that affect energy sources and 
power production are among the most troubling.
  I look forward to continued discussions with the gentleman on these 
and other issues of interest to him.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your willingness 
to work with me on these issues.
  Since Congress deserves to have more specific numbers that have not 
been available from GAO and the CBO relative to lowering this threshold 
from $100 million to $50 million, I ask unanimous consent, for now, to 
withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-311.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. 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 45, line 22, strike the quotation marks and second 
     period.
       Page 45, insert the following after line 22:

     ``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules

       ``Sections 801 through 807, as amended by the Regulations 
     From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall not 
     apply in the case of any rule that relates to the safety of 
     food, the safety of the workplace, air quality, the safety of 
     consumer products, or water quality. The provisions of this 
     chapter, as in effect before the enactment of the Regulations 
     From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall 
     continue to apply, after such enactment, to any rule 
     described in the preceding sentence.''.
       Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the 
     item relating to section 807 the following new item:

``808. Exemption for certain rules.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to the deeply flawed bill before 
us right now.
  Today we continue the majority's politically motivated attacks on 
regulations. For the past 2 weeks, we have considered bills designed to 
slow down and stop the regulatory process.
  The bill before us today doesn't target just the rules that the 
majority might like you to believe are problematic; it would hamper all 
rulemaking, even those rules that are essential to public health and 
safety.
  My amendment today seeks to address that issue by exempting the REINS 
Act regulations relating to food safety, workplace safety, air quality, 
consumer product safety, or water quality.
  These issue areas are too important to be impeded by the majority's 
need to generate political talking points. Consumers can't be put at 
risk because one House of Congress can't get its act together to pass 
food safety regulations.
  Children at risk from being exposed to toxic substances in toys can't 
wait for 535 new regulators to weigh in--that's us, the Members of 
Congress. People getting sick from tainted water supplies shouldn't be 
put further at risk by a legislative vote from one half of one-third of 
the branches of the government.
  Today's bill, the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act 
to prohibit a majority rule from going into effect unless Congress 
enacts a joint resolution of approval, specifically approving the rule.
  This is a bizarre, backwards, and unnecessary piece of legislation. 
The majority claims to be aiming to streamline the regulatory process 
and reduce the negative effects of a bureaucracy on the American people 
and on American businesses.
  Ironically, however, this bill has the effect of growing the 
regulatory process by effectively adding 535 of us additional 
regulators to the process. Each Member of Congress will now have to 
perform the role of a regulator. Congress will be forced to review the 
rules and regulations regarding highly technical matters currently 
handled by subject area experts.
  This technical complexity is precisely why we have professionals in 
the executive branch with subject matter expertise to work on these 
rules and regulations. This divide has been the fundamental cornerstone 
of the principal of separation of powers.
  But Congress is intended to represent the people and enact laws. The 
executive branch is intended to implement those laws. That 
implementation takes the form of issuing rules, regulations, and 
specific guidance on how the law will be implemented.
  The REINS Act inappropriately puts Congress into duties that should 
be carried out only by the executive branch. Congress does have 
oversight responsibility and a duty to monitor implementation, but we 
currently have methods to address the problems when they do occur, and 
we do not need this bill. The bill also will lead to confusion, 
uncertainty, and more gridlock.
  Thanks to the REINS Act requirement that Congress affirmatively 
approve of every major rule, one House of

[[Page H8229]]

Congress will essentially have a legislative veto over any major 
regulation issued.
  The worst time for businesses is uncertainty, and the REINS Act 
increases it in the regulatory process. After engaging in the process 
of helping to shape the regulations through the rulemaking process, 
citizens will have to wonder what actions will Congress take. What 
legislative deal-making will occur? Will Congress approve of the 
regulation? When will Congress approve the regulation?
  This uncertainty keeps businesses from investing and from hiring new 
workers. More uncertainty under the REINS Act is the opposite of what 
we need. Congress should spend more of its time thoroughly considering 
enacting legislation. We should have the implementation where it 
belongs, in the executive branch. We should continue to monitor 
implementation and exercise proper oversight. And in the cases where 
correction is needed, use the current legislative tools that we have at 
our disposal to address those issues.
  I do urge all of our Members to vote for my amendment to protect the 
American people.
  We don't need more gridlock here in Washington. That's why everybody 
back at home is mad at everybody. We need to go on with our work. We 
have to make sure that there is a streamlined process so that we can 
get small businesses growing again, get people back to work. That's 
what the American people want from all of us.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major 
regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace 
safety, consumer product safety, clean water, and clean air.
  In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the 
most cost, do not produce enough benefits, and do not faithfully 
implement the intent of the people's representatives in the Congress 
and in the Senate.
  A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's recent 
proposal to control mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power 
plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to 
achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. 
That is an 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Most of the benefits EPA 
identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of 
hazardous air pollution. Proponents of the regulation have nothing to 
fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations, 
Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a 
powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time.
  Think about this from the perspective of the mercury regulation that 
had the 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Who do you think is going to pay 
for that? The mistake that is made in the arguments saying that it's 
the rich on Wall Street who benefit are entirely wrong. It's 
hardworking taxpayers. It's the middle class, the working poor, and the 
elderly whose utility rates will be driven through the roof as a result 
of a regulation that was imposed against the intent of the Congress.
  When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be 
able, under the REINS Act, to correct the agency and send it back to 
the drawing board. In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a 
good regulation that Congress will approve.
  It will improve the dialogue between the executive branch and the 
Congress. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will 
not have to pay for the cost of a misguided major rule made by people 
who are not accountable to our voters.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
  The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major 
regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace 
safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air.
  In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the 
most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully 
implement Congress' intent.
  A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent 
proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power 
plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to 
achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. 
That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio.
  Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing 
to do with the control of hazardous air pollution.
  Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act. 
When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to 
approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get 
major regulations right the first time.
  When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be 
able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board.
  In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation 
that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for 
regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major 
rule.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-311.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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 45, line 22, insert after the first period the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules

       ``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by 
     the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
     2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule made by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security. This chapter, as in effect 
     before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in 
     Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after 
     such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
       Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the 
     item relating to section 807 the following new item:

808. Exemption for certain rules.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  What America wants and what I believe is important to the institution 
that we have such great respect for is for Members to work together. 
There are a number of amendments that were allowed by the Rules 
Committee, and I thank them; and the idea should be that these 
amendments improve a bill.
  It is obvious that I disagree with this bill because I think it will 
literally shut down government. If you cannot pass simple bills that 
have been passed out of the House of Representatives to the other body 
and they have not yet passed, we've finished one year of the 112th 
Congress, how do you think we can manage what is called major 
rulemaking? Eighty different rules would have to be approved by the 
President, the House, and the Senate. Literally, the American people 
would be held hostage.
  So this amendment is a cooperative amendment. I think it makes the 
bill better. The reason why, we have our soldiers, most likely on the 
front lines of Afghanistan. On account of a heinous act of terrorism on 
9/11, our soldiers were dispatched to defend this Nation in 
Afghanistan. In doing so, they had as their backup the Department of 
Homeland Security, a Department whose responsibility is to secure

[[Page H8230]]

the homeland. Simply ask the 9/11 families how serious it is to secure 
the homeland.
  My amendment would simply say that Homeland Security regulations or 
regulations dealing with securing the homeland, making America safe, 
would be exempt from this dilatory, long-winded process of approval. We 
need urgency when we speak of securing the homeland.
  For example, it is well known that we deal not only with a terrorism 
potential from around the world, but it is also possible to have a 
catastrophic event that deals with a domestic terrorist attack.
  I cannot believe that my colleagues would not want to act in a 
bipartisan manner and, in particular, with the REINS Act that requires 
a voted-on resolution of approval, otherwise the security amendment 
does not go into place. I cannot believe that we would not in a 
bipartisan way accept the Jackson Lee amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I would point out, first of all, that in a 
national emergency, the President of the United States does have the 
ability to enact an emergency rule. But what this amendment seeks to do 
is shield the Department of Homeland Security from Congress's authority 
to approve regulations under the REINS Act. That shield should be 
denied.
  For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance 
deadlines for States to issue secure driver's licenses under the REAL 
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 when hijackers used fraudulent licenses to 
board airplanes to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues to 
extend the deadline.
  Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush 
administration's no-match rule. That regulation helped companies to 
identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law. When 
the Obama administration issued its rule to repeal no match, it put the 
interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of unemployed 
Americans and legal immigrants.
  This is the kind of decisionmaking that takes place at the Department 
of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can use to 
reassert its authority over the legislation rulemaking functions it has 
delegated to DHS. The result will be to streamline communication, to 
improve communication in crisp and focused pieces of legislation and 
regulation. The REINS Act is available to do that.
  The point of the REINS Act is accountability, and each Congressman 
must take a stand to be accountable for regulations that cost our 
citizenry $100 million or more annually.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I think he plays right 
into the reason why he should join me and make this a bipartisan 
amendment.
  Frankly, I don't think we would want to throw out or delay any 
process of rulemaking dealing with securing the homeland. I think when 
the gentleman was citing licenses, he was speaking 9/11. It is now 11 
years, and we have passed a number of rulemakings that have improved 
securing the homeland. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, 
I'm quite aware of the progress we've made, such as not having to 
address that kind of, if you will, mishap--more than a mishap--but that 
kind of lack of communication that we had on 9/11.
  The point I want to make is our soldiers are on the front line in 
Afghanistan. They are asking, as someone would say on the playing 
field, Have you got my back? The Department of Homeland Security is 
that Department created from the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
which I was on, now in the Homeland Security Committee, to in fact 
provide for the security of the Nation. With that in mind, I think it 
is untenable to think of thwarting that process.
  What we have here in the REINS Act is truly the REINS Act. It is a 
stranglehold on moving the Nation forward on good regulations, clean 
air, clean water, but in this instance securing the homeland. I believe 
that having the President, the Senate, and the House come together in a 
reasonable period of time to approve a rule dealing with securing the 
homeland while soldiers are on the front line defending us is an 
atrocious position to put the securing of the Nation in.
  Let me just say this, Bruce Bartlett is a Republican. He said that 
the regulatory uncertainty that Republicans talk about 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. That's from a Republican.
  The question is let's separate the special interests. The REINS Act 
is here. They have the majority. More than likely it will pass. But 
they're going to ignore our war and our fight to secure the homeland.

                              {time}  1600

  Here on the front line, what are we doing? We're putting a 
stranglehold on the rulemaking that will come forward that's attempting 
to help the American people. If we have to do something for the 
Transportation Security Administration and the security checkpoints and 
we need a rule, it's going to be held back because of this process.
  I ask for the support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I would like to reiterate that the point of the REINS Act is 
accountability. It would not impinge, but I believe it would actually 
improve our ability to manage rulemaking and regulation that relates to 
security, indeed. The strongest authority in the House of 
Representatives who could speak on that very issue spoke in favor of 
this bill earlier, Congressman Chris Gibson from New York, who 
commanded a brigade in Afghanistan, where that picture was taken, and 
also a battalion in Iraq in 2005. And I would defer to his authority 
and military experience on that fact.
  The real issue is accountability and restoring transparency and 
checks and balances to the executive branch so that the American people 
do not have the reach of government into their back pockets, into their 
personal lives, into their schools, into their communities, and 
frankly, in northern Kentucky, even into our sewer pipes, without the 
consent of the governed.
  With that, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
  The amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) from Congress' authority to approve regulations under the REINS 
Act. That shield should be denied.
  For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance 
deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the REAL 
ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to 
board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues 
to extend the deadline.
  Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush 
Administration's ``no-match'' rule. That regulation helped companies to 
identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law.
  When the Obama Administration issued its rule to repeal ``no-match,'' 
it put the interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of 
unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.
  This is the kind of decision making that takes place at the 
Department of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can 
to reassert its authority over the legislative rulemaking functions it 
has delegated to DHS. The REINS Act is available to do that.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 7 printed in part B of House Report 112-311.

[[Page H8231]]

  Ms. MOORE. 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 45, line 22, insert after the first period the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 808. Exemption for certain rules

       ``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by 
     the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
     2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule that relates to 
     veterans or veterans affairs. This chapter, as in effect 
     before the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in 
     Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after 
     such enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.
       Page 24, in the matter preceding line 10, add after the 
     item relating to section 807 the following new item:

808. Exemption for certain rules.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would exempt our Nation's 
veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that H.R. 10 imposes 
and adds to the administrative rulemaking process and would 
specifically remove veterans from the bill's so-called ``reining'' 
provisions that require a joint resolution of Congress before an agency 
puts forth a major rule to help our men and women in uniform when they 
become veterans and after they return home from service.
  Many of my colleagues and I disagree with this bill for a variety of 
reasons, including the author's premise that reducing the 
administration's ability to regulate and promulgate rules will result 
in job creation. But whether or not we agree on the direction and 
approach to best help and promote America's future, we all agree on 
some things. We all agree that the last thing we want to do is to pass 
legislation that will delay assistance to those veterans who have 
selflessly chosen to fight for our country and deserve every ounce of 
assistance we can provide them when they come back home.
  Veterans deserve educational opportunity, rehabilitation for 
sometimes very severe disabilities, Mr. Chairman, mental health 
treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder, employment opportunities, 
and housing opportunities. Delaying rulemaking authority will have dire 
consequences for our veterans.
  For example, Mr. Chair, one very disturbing issue for me has been the 
high rate of suicides among our servicemembers. We can't delay this 
kind of assistance. In fact, last year there were more deaths among our 
troops from suspected suicide than deaths from hostile combat.
  We're facing an epidemic here at home, too. A recent report from the 
Center for New American Security noted that 1 percent of the population 
has served in the military, and yet those servicemembers represent 20 
percent of all of the suicides in the United States.
  Resources for the military are sparse. According to a recent Veterans 
Health Administration survey of mental health providers, 40 percent 
responded that they could not schedule a new appointment at their 
clinic within 14 days; 70 percent of surveyed facilities cited an 
inadequate number of staff to treat veterans; and 70 percent said that 
they just simply lacked space.
  We also know that there's a serious unemployment barrier among our 
veterans as they return to civilian life. The unemployment rate among 
vets who served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 is 12.1 percent, 
substantially higher than the national average that we're so concerned 
about now. Unemployment among vets will spike as we end the war in 
Iraq. The last 20,000 troops are expected to arrive by the end of the 
year from Iraq. We can expect about an additional 10,000 veterans from 
Afghanistan to come home before the end of the year, and 23,000 by the 
end of 2012.
  We just can't delay assistance to our veterans. This has been an 
area, Mr. Chairman, where Democrats and Republicans have typically come 
together and agreed. Yet H.R. 10, the REINS Act, will have unintended 
consequences and dangerous consequences for veterans who, of course, 
have received our undying gratitude and support.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and support my 
amendment because this is not an area where we want to delay services 
to them. We don't want to subject our vets to the politics of 
Washington and a gridlocked, hyperpartisan Congress that struggles even 
to extend unemployment insurance in a recession or the payroll tax to 
middle class people, let alone a credit default by something ``so 
historically difficult'' as raising the debt ceiling.
  I just think that Americans will agree with me that our Nation's 
veterans deserve to be excluded from the gridlock that this will 
invariably cause. Let's come together once more to adopt this 
amendment, Mr. Chair, not just for the troops that need help, but for 
the troops that will be here in the near future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I respect my friend from Wisconsin with whom I have worked on 
numerous pieces of legislation related to child homelessness and 
affordable housing; but in this case I'm going to respectfully disagree 
with the premise of the legislation, as a veteran, as a former Army 
Ranger, as a flight commander of an assault helicopter unit in the 82nd 
Airborne Division and who served in the Middle East.
  The one thing that I would say is that nothing in the REINS Act would 
in any way inhibit or impede the delivery of services to our veterans, 
of whom I have been a champion in my time in Congress on numerous 
pieces of legislation. What I would say is the REINS Act would provide 
a framework for discussion were there a rule to arise that hit that 
cost threshold to assure crisp, clear improvement, particularly in 
dealing with backlogs.
  When we deal with the VA specifically, I have had area managers of 
the Veterans Administration point out specific rules that cause 
increased queuing and waiting time that were not being addressed. This 
amendment would actually prevent us from being able to address such 
things, were they to hit the threshold.
  The amendment carves all regulations that affect veterans and veteran 
affairs out of the REINS Act congressional approval procedures. 
Frankly, the REINS Act supporters honor America's veterans. We have had 
America's veterans speaking in favor of this bill throughout the 
afternoon.
  I believe that ultimately we are going to make decisions that will be 
in keeping with the will of the American people and in the best 
interests of those veterans as we move forward.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for responding, even though he 
doesn't agree with me. I'm just looking at about at least 14 rules that 
have been implemented very expeditiously on behalf of our veterans 
since September 11. It is chilling to think about the delays that may 
be caused by an extra process.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. That's a point that the gentlewoman and I will 
agree to disagree on. I believe that we have seen the Congress move in 
an expedited manner in national security in dealing with our veterans, 
and there would be no difference under this legislation.
  Ultimately, we know that Congress must approve all legislation 
relating to every agency of the Federal Government, and we'll be doing 
our constitutional duty, as I remind everybody listening, to restore 
transparency, accountability, and a check-and-balance so that our 
citizens and our voters can hold somebody in the government accountable 
instead of faceless bureaucrats.

                              {time}  1610

  It's a solution that everyone should support. Congress will be more 
accountable.
  I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

[[Page H8232]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, 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 Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
112-311 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Johnson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 236, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 895]

                               AYES--187

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Castor (FL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Hinchey
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1637

  Messrs. BILBRAY, HERGER, CANTOR, FITZPATRICK, STIVERS, and SCHOCK 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Schrader) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 896]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating

[[Page H8233]]


     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Castor (FL)
     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Hinchey
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Paul
     Wasserman Schultz
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1642

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``present'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 246, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 897]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)

[[Page H8234]]


     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Brady (TX)
     Castor (FL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Watt
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1645

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 242, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 898]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachmann
     Barton (TX)
     Castor (FL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Kind
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Watt
     Webster
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1649

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 240, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 899]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone

[[Page H8235]]


     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachmann
     Bishop (UT)
     Castor (FL)
     Cummings
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Young (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1653

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. West). There being no further amendments, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. West, 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. 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, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 479, reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, 
back to the House with a further amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. DeLAURO moves to recommit the bill H.R. 10 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 45, line 22, insert after the first period the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 808. Protection of Food Safety and Consumer's Right to 
       Know through Country-of-Origin Labeling

       ``Sections 801 through 807 of this chapter, as amended by 
     the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 
     2011 shall not apply in the case of any rule regarding 
     country of origin labeling. This chapter, as in effect before 
     the enactment of the Regulations from the Executive in Need 
     of Scrutiny Act of 2011, shall continue to apply, after such 
     enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that would exempt 
country of origin labeling from the regulations affected by this 
legislation. This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not 
kill it or send it back to committee. Instead, we will move to final 
passage on the bill, as amended.
  We have had a heated debate over this act. I have very strong 
concerns about it. But however one feels about the legislation before 
us, we should all be able to agree on fundamental principles.
  First, that it is the responsibility of this institution and of 
government to see that the health and the safety of American families 
are protected. This includes protecting Americans from unsafe and 
contaminated food. And, second, the consumer should be able to know 
where the food and products they buy come from so that they can make 
informed decisions about their purchases, as they should be able to in 
a free market.
  That is what country of origin labeling does, and it is why my final 
amendment simply exempts country of origin labeling from the underlying 
bill before us. It gives us an opportunity to come together in a 
bipartisan way to protect the health and safety of our constituents and 
to give the American public the information they need and clearly want 
to make informed decisions for their families.
  More than 40 other countries we trade with have a country of origin 
labeling system in place, and the majority of American consumers 
continue to support country of origin labeling.
  We know that food-borne illnesses are a major public health threat. 
They account for roughly 48 million illnesses, 100,000 hospitalizations 
and over 3,000 deaths in this country every year. Every year one in 
every six Americans become sick from the food that they eat. Our 
youngest and oldest Americans are the most vulnerable to these 
illnesses, and right now roughly 80 percent of the seafood and 60 
percent of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States have 
been produced outside our borders.
  Amid all this imported food, our ability to ensure that food products 
are safe and not contaminated is dwindling. The FDA inspects less than 
2 percent of the imported food in its jurisdiction. Yet, 70 percent of 
the apple juice we drink was produced in China,

[[Page H8236]]

roughly 90 percent of the shrimp that we eat was produced outside of 
the United States. Across this 2 percent, the FDA finds a frighteningly 
large number of shipments with dangerous food safety violations, 
including the presence of pathogens and chemical contamination.
  Families should be able to know where their food is coming from. Just 
this morning, a Japanese food producer announced the recall of 400,000 
cans of infant formula after traces of radioactive cesium were found in 
the company's milk powder. And after the Fukushima disaster earlier 
this year, Americans were concerned about the safety of seafood 
imports.
  I do not want to single out any one country. Sadly, food-borne 
disease outbreaks are frighteningly normal, both here and abroad. We 
recently experienced a listeria outbreak in cantaloupes which sickened 
at least 139 people and killed 29 more. Germany saw an E. coli crisis 
this summer that killed dozens and sickened thousands. In 2010, we saw 
a salmonella outbreak in crushed pepper that sickened 272 people, and 
another salmonella outbreak that resulted in the recall of over half a 
billion eggs and almost 2,000 Americans becoming ill.
  Country of origin labeling does not lead to American job losses or 
bankrupt the food industry; it simply lets consumers know where their 
food comes from.
  That is particularly important in this economy, when not only food 
inspectors, but food producers are stretched thin. Consumers should be 
able to know when they are buying foods that were grown, raised, or 
produced right here in America.

                              {time}  1700

  They have the right to know where their food was produced and to make 
their own choices about the food that they buy.
  In the past, there has been a bipartisan consensus that country-of-
origin labeling is a good idea, that it keeps families safe, and that 
it supports American farmers. In fact, the chairman, my counterpart on 
the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman 
Rehberg of Montana, has been a leader in ensuring strong country-of-
origin labeling. We should continue that bipartisan commitment today. 
Exempt country-of-origin labeling from the REINS Act.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for public health, consumers' right 
to know, and American businesses. Support this final amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this motion is a distraction. It 
misses the point of this legislation entirely. We are here today to 
restore accountability for the regulations with the biggest impact on 
our economy.
  Good, bad or ugly--and our regulatory code includes all three--
Congress should be accountable for regulations that cost the American 
people $100 million or more annually.
  The REINS Act simply says that Congress must vote on these 
regulations, these major rules, before they can be enforced on the 
American people. Essentially, this motion to recommit repeats part of 
an exclusion already attempted in the McCarthy amendment that the House 
just voted down. It's purely a political motion.
  The REINS Act has been the subject of two hearings and a markup in 
the Judiciary Committee and was subject to an additional markup in the 
Rules Committee. Today, we have had a robust debate on the bill and 
seven amendments, five of which were offered by colleagues in the 
minority.
  Congress has a bipartisan bad habit writing vague legislation that 
sounds nice, but leaves the dirty work to unelected bureaucrats in 
administrative agencies. This practice has allowed the Congress to 
claim credit for popular aspects of laws, and blame regulatory agencies 
for increased costs or the otherwise negative effects of the 
regulations.
  Agencies are also starting to bypass Congress by writing regulations 
that stretch the bounds of their delegated authorities. The 
administration has declared an intent to pursue their agenda by pushing 
items they could not get through Congress through regulatory actions 
instead. Indeed, laws they could not pass in Democratic supermajorities 
in the last Congress are now being attempted, against the will of the 
Congress, to be implemented by regulation.
  What we have proposed in the REINS Act is very simple: Congress 
should at the very least be accountable for regulations with $100 
million of annual economic impact or more. These rules are classified 
by the administration as major rules.
  The REINS Act is not anti-regulation, and it is not pro-regulation. 
What we're saying is let's have a transparent and accountable process 
for implementing new regulations.
  According to a recent Gallup Poll, small business owners cited 
complying with government regulation as the biggest problem facing them 
today. Public Notice did a poll recently that found that a majority of 
Americans believe Congress should approve regulations before they can 
be enforced.
  Our economy is struggling to recover, and more than 13 million 
Americans are still out of work. Congress needs to do a much better job 
of creating a pro-growth environment that increases our competitiveness 
and rewards entrepreneurship and ingenuity.
  Everyone agrees that regulations can have a significant and 
detrimental impact on jobs and our economy. Even President Obama 
described regulations that stifle innovation and have a chilling effect 
on growth and jobs in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this 
year.
  The REINS Act lays down a marker to say that Congress should be 
directly accountable for the most expensive regulations that could 
stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.
  In the words of the great Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicholas 
Longworth, I ask all of my colleagues to strike a blow for liberty, to 
vote for accountability. I oppose the motion to recommit. Vote against 
the motion to recommit. Support the REINS Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 235, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 900]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard

[[Page H8237]]


     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Lee (CA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Payne
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1723

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 184, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 901]

                               AYES--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Castor (FL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1730

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H8238]]



                          ____________________