Amendment Text: H.Amdt.458 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (08/01/2013)

This Amendment appears on page H5330-5331 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H5309-H5332]
     REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2013

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to set the frame 
for where we are.
  What we're asking is for all major rules and regulations to have to 
be approved by both the House and the Senate and signed by the 
President before they would ever go into effect. That message is one of 
the few things we can agree on--the Senate agreed on the time we can 
adjourn. That's about what we agree on. Seventeen bills have made it 
through here in 7 months, and we're talking about 50 to 100 major 
rules. Not gonna happen.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Tennessee, and I thank him for 
his able leadership on this bill.
  Listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle, I urge them 
all to re-read Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' because that's where 
you would take us. You would take us to a world in which there was no 
Federal oversight of the food supply in America, there was no oversight 
of child labor in America, there was no oversight of workplace safety 
in America. And tragedies ensued.
  America's water, America's air is cleaner, more breathable, and 
healthier today precisely because of regulation. The narrative that all 
regulation is burdensome--it only entails a cost, it never entails a 
benefit--is absolutely false and needs to be rejected by this body.
  Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it is once again shaping up to be a lost summer 
for Congress as a number of issues ripe for debate--not this one--will 
be left to wither on the vine as Members leave town for the next 5 
weeks. That's frustrating, after this year began with so much promise.
  I was pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition that voted for the 
New Year's Day deal to avert the fiscal cliff. A few weeks later, that 
same bipartisan coalition banded together to provide emergency aid to 
communities ravaged by Superstorm Sandy. Thankfully, our success didn't 
stop even there. We came together again on a bipartisan basis to 
reaffirm the strong support for the Violence Against Women Act after it 
had languished in this body because leadership refused to compromise.
  At that point, people were actually beginning to wonder if the 113th 
Congress had finally gotten the message--that the American people want 
us to work together to get things done, not to just make cheap 
political points. But sadly, that progress was not sustained.
  The first fissure appeared after the Senate's adoption of its first 
budget in nearly 4 years. I guess my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the House Republicans, who had repeatedly beat up on the other 
Chamber for not doing its job with respect to the budget, are still 
dumbfounded that they in fact did pass one because it's been 4 months 
and they still have yet to appoint Members to the conference committee 
they claim they wanted.
  Then the Senate managed to pass bipartisan comprehensive immigration 
reform. Our Republican colleagues may talk a good game on immigration, 
but that's all they've done so far here in the House. Not one of the 
bills in their piecemeal approach has come to this floor for 
consideration.
  And just recently, House leaders allowed extreme partisanship to not 
only derail what was originally a bipartisan farm bill, but to also 
cast aside a critical safety net that was founded on a bipartisan basis 
in both the Senate and the House decades ago to protect families who 
need help putting food on the table.
  The list of unfinished business continues to grow as we enter the 
final days of summer, but where is the urgency to resolve them? I was 
puzzled to see House Republicans bring up a so-called ``jobs'' bill 
that once again provided less infrastructure funding than we did the 
previous year in what was called the T-HUD appropriation bill. Of 
course it wasn't a surprise they had to pull it from the floor in the 
face of bipartisan opposition. Their parting shot of this week will be 
the 40th attempt to repeal part or all of ObamaCare. That's 40.
  When we return from this ill-timed recess, Congress will have just 9 
legislative days to reach a deal on keeping the government open for 
business beyond the end of the fiscal year, and by that time we're 
going to be bumping up against the debt ceiling. We actually managed a 
bipartisan accord to suspend that debt ceiling earlier this year, but 
we haven't been able to rekindle that spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people aren't taking 5 weeks off like we 
are, and neither should this Congress. We can't afford another lost 
summer.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
  Mr. BACHUS. The gentleman from Fairfax, Virginia, has just told us 
that we have avoided the fiscal cliff. I wonder if our children and 
grandchildren can take any comfort in that. I had no idea that the 
deficit and the debt had gone away. I had been told they were 
increasing by billions of dollars every day.
  We have another difference of opinion across the aisle. Our 
colleagues are saying we need more Federal regulations--those that are 
covered by this bill that cost $100 million or more. We on this side of 
the aisle think that we could do well with a few less more regulations. 
Yes, every President has added regulations, every administration--and 
we're supposed to say that that is a good thing?
  Regulations today cost $11,000 per American worker. Now, that's not 
taxes; that's not your Social Security; that's not their expense. That 
is just the Federal regulations. Fourteen percent of our national 
income, according to Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, our former Congressional 
Budget Office director, 14 percent of our national income is being 
absorbed by Federal regulations.

  Now, the gentleman from Tennessee says there were all these 
regulations before, and the Obama administration, they passed very few 
regulations. Well, not according to Dr. Holtz-Eakin. He

[[Page H5310]]

actually says that in the last 4 years, the Obama administration has 
added over a half-trillion dollars worth of new regulations. Boy, so it 
may be Groundhog Day, but we're another half-trillion dollars deeper in 
Federal regulations.
  But let's talk about one family. Let's talk about one family and what 
regulations mean to them. One regulation caused American families to 
pay $20 more for a bronchial dilator. That was despite the fact that in 
1987, in Montreal, there was an accord. And the reason is, the FDA said 
we're not going to allow an ozone-depleting substance to come out of 
these bronchial dilators, so they banned it. And immediately, in 2008, 
the cost of these bronchial dilators went from $6 and $8 up to as much 
as $30. Well, you know what the effect of that was? Let me tell you 
what The New York Times said. The New York Times described this as a 
rough transition to new asthma inhalers because several million 
Americans suddenly were paying $20 more and some couldn't afford it.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Some couldn't afford it, I'll say to the gentleman from 
Virginia, the gentleman from Georgia, and the gentleman from Tennessee. 
Several million Americans were suddenly being forced--some elderly, 
some children--to pay $20 more for what had been a $7 or $10 item. And 
you know what happened? A lot of them couldn't afford it, and there 
were more asthma attacks and there was more bronchitis, and emphysema 
increased. That was despite the fact that in Montreal, in 1987, there 
was an accord that said, number one, that substance in a medical 
inhaler was essential and was excepted from the accord because the 
ozone was improving, number one. But number two, even if you banned all 
non-industrial discharges of ozone-depleting substances--all of them--
it wouldn't do any good; it would have an insignificant effect. And of 
the non-industrial discharges, the amount from medical inhalers was 
infinitesimal. We denied millions of Americans an essential health 
item.
  Mr. COHEN. Before I yield to Mr. Johnson, I would say that I could 
respond to some of the statements that the gentleman from Alabama made, 
but I won't do it because I have the highest respect for him. He's one 
of the finest Members of this House.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
367, the REINS Act.
  I have profound concerns with the REINS Act. This bill would 
undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public interest. It is 
a continuation of the majority's obstructionist approach that led to 
sequestration.
  This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us back to the days 
before the Wall Street collapse, a financial catastrophe that could 
have been avoided by responsible policies. This bill comes from the 
same brain trust that pulled the bill for transportation funding 
yesterday. Apparently, $4.4 billion in budget cuts is not good enough 
for these Republicans.
  And now we consider the REINS Act, a bill that would require Congress 
to have the final say on regulations. Stop and think about that. The 
same House Republicans that could not vote to fund transportation now 
want to have the final say on all major rules. Never mind that Congress 
already has that power under the Congressional Review Act. Never mind 
that House Republican leadership tried this same maneuver in 2011.

                              {time}  1830

  If Republican leadership truly believed in growing the economy and 
creating jobs, we would have come together with a grand bargain long 
ago. We could even vote on job-creating legislation to strengthen the 
middle class. But instead, this Republican Congress insists on voting 
on a messaging bill that will go absolutely nowhere. Few Americans are 
surprised by yet another Republican leadership failure that has become 
par for the course.
  Mr. Chairman, millions of Americans are still out of work. As we go 
back to our districts over the recess, I hope my Republican colleagues 
can look into the eyes of the poor and the unemployed in their 
communities and say: ``Don't worry, I voted for a messaging bill to 
deregulate America.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes on this job-creating legislation to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Smith), a great new member of the House Judiciary 
Committee,
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 367, the REINS Act of 2013.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and a cosponsor, 
I am pleased to see a good reform bill like REINS come to the floor. 
Regulations impose hundreds of billions of dollars--in fact, trillions 
of dollars--on family farmers and small businesses, which significantly 
affect our economy and job creation in southeast Missouri.
  Businesses and individuals face an uncertain regulatory future, and 
this gives them pause as they seek to start or grow their businesses to 
encourage economic growth and create jobs. The REINS bill adds just a 
little more certainty to the process. It allows these individuals to 
hear about regulations and give input to Congress before they vote up 
or down on an agency rule.
  As I travel across Missouri, I always run into business owners, 
family farmers, and individuals who have felt the sting of government 
and their overreach, with the over 170,000 pages of rules and 
regulations affecting their lives. The ``pie in the sky'' regulations 
here in D.C. have real effects back home. The voice of the American 
people through their elected representatives should be the determining 
factor in government regulation, not that of a beltway bureaucrat.
  I urge adoption of the REINS Act.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 53 seconds to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this misguided 
piece of legislation, which would erect new obstacles and red tape to 
protecting American lives.
  At the outset, let me just reiterate what Mr. Cohen said earlier in 
his opening remarks, which is that Congress already has the power to 
disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act, through the 
appropriations process, and through other authorizing legislation.
  H.R. 367, let's face it, is essentially an attempt to impose a 
procedural chokehold on protecting American citizens. I want to talk 
about one of those proposed rules, which is now pending at OSHA, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is a rule to 
prevent the continuing litany of workplace fire and explosions from 
combustible dust.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't see fit to allow an 
amendment offered by Representative George Miller to exclude that rule 
from the underlying bill. It has been abundantly clear for a decade 
that Federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust 
explosions and fires.
  In 2003, the Chemical Safety Board found that protections to stop 
these explosions were grossly inadequate. The Board identified hundreds 
of other combustible dust fires and explosions, causing at least 119 
fatalities and 715 injuries over the last 15 years.
  The investigators themselves are not alone in demanding action. Tammy 
Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress recently about how her 
brother Shawn was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel 
plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us how he was left 
lying on a smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust 
burned through his flesh and muscle tissue. And each breath caused his 
internal organs to be burned even more.
  Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been 
the last. It has been more than 5 years since the Imperial Sugar 
explosion in Georgia, an explosion that killed 14 workers. It caused 
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because an unchecked 
accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions, 
leveling the plant.
  These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 49 major 
combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 18 and injured 
131 workers since Imperial Sugar.

[[Page H5311]]

  More recently, five workers were killed in three separate events at a 
factory north of Nashville because an iron powder processing plant 
failed to abate repeated dust hazards. Each of the five left behind a 
wife and child; one had four children under 11, another became a 
grandfather the day before he was killed.
  Widows have called on their government to protect them, and that's 
where OSHA comes in. In 2009, OSHA finally started work on a rule to 
reduce the risk of these explosions. There will be small business 
panels, risk assessments, public hearings, and plenty of opportunities 
for comments.
  Despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special 
interests a new way to block needed protections, and they are already 
lining up to kill a rule they dislike.
  The sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an 
effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working 
families and their widows.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.
  If I have another few seconds, I just want to say we are now hours 
away from a 5-week recess. 640,000 DOD civilian employees are looking 
at Congress, asking why they should be furloughed for the next 8 weeks, 
losing 20 percent of their pay, some of whom are doing critical work 
for our national security, and yet not once in the over 200 days since 
this Congress was sworn in, has the governing majority brought a bill 
to this floor to turn off sequester and make sure that these people who 
are doing critical work for our national security can do their job. 
That's what we should be focused on. We should cancel the recess, turn 
off sequester, and end the endless debate about bills that are headed 
nowhere.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the REINS Act.
  The REINS Act is needed, frankly, because for decades now Congress 
has abdicated its responsibility for lawmaking to unelected Federal 
elites in the executive branch. They often create overbearing 
regulations that stifle innovation, reduce productivity, prevent 
businesses from growing and adding jobs, and increase prices on 
everything from gasoline to groceries. Don't get me wrong; some 
regulations are good and necessary, but they come with substantial 
cost, and there is not enough accountability for them.
  I would look forward to voting for good regulations, and I would 
think my colleagues across the aisle would also look forward to voting 
for good regulations and taking credit for them. At this moment, 
however, the Obama administration has regulations in the pipeline that 
could cost the American people more than $50 billion. The Competitive 
Enterprise Institute estimates the regulatory burden to be almost 
$15,000 a year per family. Another study estimates that just six EPA 
regulations will cause the loss of almost 10 million jobs.
  These rules are written by unelected elites with very little 
accountability to individual citizens across my district in western 
Pennsylvania, from Ellwood City to Lower Burrell to Somerset.
  The REINS Act requires your elected representatives to be more 
accountable for regulations. Very simply, if the regulations will cost 
Americans more than $100 million, then Congress has to vote on it. Good 
regulations will be approved, and others will not. But your 
representative will have to declare a position, and you can hold them 
accountable for their votes.
  Mr. Chairman, the REINS Act makes sense to me, it makes sense to my 
constituents in western Pennsylvania, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Tennessee has 10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the REINS Act, and I rise in 
support of the man who introduced it, my friend and colleague from 
Indiana, Mr. Young.
  I want to start out by addressing something the gentleman from 
Tennessee debated and talked about just a little bit earlier. He said 
that ``we don't get anything done here.'' I would like to take some 
opposition to that.
  Just this week, we solved in a permanent fashion, Mr. Chairman, the 
student loan situation. We didn't do it with Democratic-inspired price 
fixing; we tied it to the market. Now, it's true it was very much a 
Republican bill when it left this House, then it was wisely adopted by 
the Senate in agreement last week, and it came back over here for a 
final vote 99 percent the same as it left. That's getting something 
done. That is real.
  But let's take the gentleman's point a little bit further. Let's say 
sometimes we don't get something done; let's say sometimes we don't 
agree. The gentleman's solution is to let the unelected, unaccountable, 
nameless, faceless bureaucrats handle it, who aren't directly elected 
by anybody.
  That is an abdication of the constitutional duty of this House, of 
this branch of government. It is our duty to make the laws; it is our 
duty to make the rules. And not only is it our duty to debate and pass 
legislation--hopefully not every time with our names on it--but it's 
also our constitutional duty to oversight the executive branch. That's 
exactly what the REINS Act acts to do.
  How dare we decide we don't want to address, we don't want to tackle 
the big issues, Mr. Chairman, because they're too controversial; let 
the bureaucrats do it. That's not the way to run a government, that's 
not a way to run this branch of government, and that's not the way to 
run this House.
  It's time this body starts doing its second and equally important 
constitutional duty, and that is oversight of the executive branch. The 
REINS Act, again, helps us do that in large measure. For that reason, I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.

  Mr. COHEN. I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), home of Archie Bell and the Drells.
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his 
distinguished leadership and friendship, and the chairman of the full 
committee, because I believe that it is fair to have a difference of 
opinion. It is also fair to say that there are times when we have a 
great opportunity to work together.
  I believe the gentleman mentioned my tenure on the Judiciary 
Committee, so let me document for my colleagues: the REINS Act goes 
around and around and around and around. It is constantly repeated and 
reintroduced, and it constantly fails.
  For the new Members, my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
are standing up and talking about what a great impact this would have, 
they are using old data and misinterpretation, for there is no real 
documentation that the REINS Act is going to stop $1.5 trillion in 
excess cost. In fact, the authors of the study that my friends are 
using--the study was assessed by the Congressional Research Service.
  I know when I speak to the American people and my colleagues they 
want to debunk all of this procedure and say ``enough is enough.'' But 
the CRS showed that the study was flawed, but more importantly, the 
author said: ``We never intended for this to determine benefits to 
regulation. Our studies have nothing to do with it.''
  We cannot document the $1.5 trillion or the billions of dollars that 
our friends say that they're going to lose. They know full well that 
there is a procedure of disapproval that Congress can respond to the 
needs and the questions of the American public.

                              {time}  1845

  What they do not tell you is that this procedure--oh, I hate to talk 
about it. Please let me apologize. If you hear it, your eyes will roll 
back in your head, for what has to happen now is that the agency is 
doing its work. The DOD, Health and Human Services, the Department of 
Education are doing their work under existing law. They are trying to 
work on clean air and clean

[[Page H5312]]

water, safe toys, safe cars, and safe workplaces.
  By the way, I offered an amendment to exempt children's regulations 
for babies who are 2 and under, and I was denied by the majority, by 
the Republican Rules Committee, so that babies who need safe cribs and 
toys now have to have this happen. Unless both Houses of Congress pass 
a joint resolution--let me tell you how long that might take--2 years, 
3 years, five sessions, who knows--and then such rule within a fixed 
70-legislative-day period, it kicks over into the next Congress. In the 
meantime, babies' heads are driven through cribs.
  Those of us who are mothers know that era. It hasn't stopped. Each 
time, you have to look at the technology of cribs--or of toys that they 
choke on--and be able to discern how newborns are impacted. The 
Consumer Product Safety Commission can't effectively put a regulation 
in. Mothers understand that. Can you imagine a resolution of two Houses 
of Congress? Right now, we can't even get a budget resolution going 
forward.
  I will tell you what the American people want us to do. It's not the 
REINS Act, which goes around and around. I think it was in the 112th 
Congress and in the 111th Congress. We are now in the 113th, and we 
will do it in the 114th. It does not save money. The American people 
want a solution-based budgeting process. They want us to go back to the 
budget reconciliation. They want us to stop laying off, as my good 
friend from Connecticut said, hardworking Defense workers, hardworking 
Homeland Security workers, hardworking Department of Education workers, 
who are trying to help this country be better. They want us to reduce 
the deficit. I will raise my hand for that. That is a good thing. They 
want us to create jobs, and they want us to be fair to the middle 
class.
  I come from Texas. One of the worst disasters ever to occur was in 
West, Texas--the tragedy and the devastation of the loss of our fellow 
Americans in an explosion that should not have happened. What was the 
cry? What was the Federal Government doing? What was the regulatory 
scheme in order to prevent whatever ignited that terrible tragedy to 
see the loss of first responders?
  The Federal Government is an umbrella on a rainy day. Fix the 
problems of regulation one by one. If there is one that is undermining 
small businesses, we are happy to do the disapproval process, and you 
can be assured that the voices of the American people will cry out. I 
can tell you that there is no proof--no legitimacy, no documentation--
but anecdotal stories of, I hate the Federal Government. I don't hate 
the Federal Government. I pledge allegiance to this great flag and to 
this great Nation. I love my country. Therefore, I understand that it 
is the umbrella on a rainy day.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady in 
order to explain the fallacies of this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
kindness.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason we had to reassess the Army Corps of 
Engineers and have a regulatory scheme is that we lost almost 1,000-
plus individuals in Hurricane Katrina. It wasn't the hurricane that had 
come through; it was the dam that broke. I know it well because I 
walked those streets of the Ninth Ward, and I saw the babies' shoes and 
the clothing hanging on closets and the whole area that was literally 
destroyed and that killed 1,000 people.
  It's the regulatory structure of what kind of oversight was given, 
what regulatory structure the Army Corps was working under, what 
oversight they gave, what the regulation period was in which they had 
to review these kinds of structures around America. Then people wanted 
us to get in and get something accomplished. So I am just perplexed 
that there is no evidence whatsoever that this will create jobs, and it 
does not answer, by any means, how this government can work better.
  I started to say to the gentleman from Tennessee that we all love 
this country--we pledge allegiance to the flag in our schools and in 
this body--and I wish my friends on the other side of the aisle would 
find some other way that we could work together. They talk about Obama 
administration regulations. My friends, they have been submitting this 
over and over again. These regulations have been carried forward from 
the Bush administration. This is not from the Obama administration.
  Let me close by saying that I want clean air, that I want clean 
water, that I want our babies to be safe in their cribs and playpens. I 
am appalled that they put this legislation on the floor as something 
new when this is as old as Methuselah and, I might say, has limited 
value. As we would say in Texas, it's something that would be very 
doubtful. I'll leave it at that because we usually talk Texan in Texas, 
and I'm not there now.
  What I will tell you is that we have ways of explaining how things 
are not relevant. This is not relevant, and it does not equate to a 
State legislature at all. This is for the United States of America. You 
cannot put the REINS Act in place and talk about jobs. I simply ask 
that we defeat this bill and pass these amendments that have been 
offered by Democrats, who want to make sure that we address the 
question of the American people.
  I leave this podium by saying to the gentleman from Tennessee: Is it 
ludicrous to place as a responsibility of the Congress a 70-day window 
for two Houses to pass a resolution when we did not and were not able 
to pass a student loan effort for months and months, which, by the way, 
was made better by Senate Democrats? Is it reasonable?

  Mr. COHEN. It is not reasonable.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1996, the disapproval process described by the 
gentlewoman from Texas has succeeded just one time. During that time, 
tens of thousands of regulations have been passed; and if people think 
that all but one of them were just fine, I would suggest it's just the 
opposite. It's the process right now--the inability of the Congress to 
rein in regulations that are out of control--which is lacking, and 
that's why we need the REINS Act, so that regulations that cost more 
than $100 million come back to the Congress for approval.
  It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Farenthold), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and 
the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial 
and Antitrust Law.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I want to address, too, what my 
colleague from Houston, Texas, just said.
  I love clean air, clean water, safe working places as much as she 
does; but we've got a government now that, instead of working with the 
people and with industry, is working against them. The trust in our 
government is at an all-time low. Scandal after scandal is plaguing the 
government. We have got to get people who are accountable in charge of 
those regulations, not unelected bureaucrats who are writing 
regulations that only in the history of the Review Act have been 
overturned one time. Ergonomic furniture was the only time that was 
able to work.
  What I want to talk about is the Constitution.
  The Constitution granted this body--the House of Representatives--and 
our colleagues across the Capitol, the Senate, the legislative power in 
this country to write laws and make rules that the American people must 
abide by. Now, for a variety of reasons, past Congresses have delegated 
this part. I mean, it makes sense. I don't know how many parts per 
billion of whatever substance in water is safe and what isn't. I don't 
know how many feet high a barrier needs to be to keep our workers safe. 
We've given this authority to our regulatory agencies. Yet, under this 
President in particular--and even under past Presidents--these agencies 
have seized that power and have written more and more burdensome 
regulations that go beyond the intent of this body.
  Before we burden the American people with expensive, burdensome and 
intrusive regulations, the American people have a right to have their 
elected officials vote on it. This is how we are starting to reclaim 
some of the power that past Congresses have given away and are bringing 
it back to where our Founding Fathers rightfully intended--

[[Page H5313]]

into the Halls of Congress. This is a rational way to do it.
  Washington works best under pressure. We give ourselves a deadline. 
If there is a bad rule that comes up under the REINS Act, we will get 
to it. We will approve it if it's good, and we will disapprove it if 
it's bad. That's our job. That's what we were sent here to do and, with 
our salaries, what we are paid to do.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. It is my pleasure to yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to wrap up by saying that this really is a 
problem. Elected officials are not making the rules. There is no 
accountability, and it's going to be hard for us to do it. This is the 
first step in bringing the power back to the people and to their 
elected Representatives. The REINS Act is a commonsense way to hold 
government accountable and to start to rebuild that trust that the 
American people have lost in Washington, D.C. That is what is good for 
America, and I urge my colleagues to support the REINS Act.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve what few precious minutes 
and seconds I may have left, and I would like to be informed of how 
many precious minutes and seconds I have.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for 
bringing this bill forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the REINS Act. If you look 
at why we are bringing this bill forward, it is because of the 
onslaught of radical regulations that have been coming from this Obama 
administration for the last 4\1/2\ years.
  Every time I go back home and talk to small business owners in my 
district, the biggest impediment that they tell me they have to 
creating more jobs--the biggest impediment--is the rules and 
regulations coming down from the Federal Government. If you look at 
what the REINS Act does, it doesn't stop those rules and regulations. 
It just says, if these rules and regulations are so important and have 
a $100 million impact on our economy, shouldn't they come before 
Congress and have to state their cases? I mean, what are you so afraid 
of in coming before the public body and having transparency?
  President Obama said he was going to be the most transparent 
President ever. Yet he has got these bureaucrats who want to go behind 
closed doors and come up with rules and regulations. We have had 
hearings on some of this stuff, by the way, and they talk about things 
that are going to save kids' lives and things that are going to improve 
the quality of our air. We have had hearing after hearing in which the 
rules that they come up with have absolutely nothing to do with 
improving the quality of people's health.
  What it has to do with is ramming through a radical agenda that they 
can't pass through Congress, and if Congress can't pass it--the 
publicly elected body of the United States Government--then you 
shouldn't go through the back door and have some unelected bureaucrat 
try to ram that through on this country and cause a devastating impact 
on jobs.

  There have been over 130 different major rules under the Obama 
administration having a $70 billion impact on families in this country. 
With that $70 billion of impact that's going to cost families more 
money for food, for energy--for everything they do--shouldn't they have 
to come before the public bodies here in Congress and state the case? 
If it's such a good rule, what are they afraid of? Why don't they want 
that transparency?
  It's because they don't want the transparency. They want to ram 
through the radical agenda, and the REINS Act just puts a stop to the 
unelected bureaucrats from doing it.
  Mr. COHEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I believe all of the speakers on our 
side have spoken. I reserve the right to close, and at this time, I 
await the gentleman's actions. Then I will be happy to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a good discussion on this bill. Indeed, it 
is ``Groundhog Day'' as we have had it so many times. We've just gone 
around and around.
  It is amazing that this body, which I am so proud to serve in, has 
popularity ratings amongst the American public of less than 10 percent 
because of the ineffectiveness of the House to work with the Senate and 
get anything done. Yet here we are, trying to give this body more power 
over the safety and health--fiscal and physical--of the American 
public.
  One of the gentlemen spoke and said, I don't know how tall something 
has to be--a dam. I don't know.
  Of course he doesn't know. You leave it to the experts. We pass laws. 
We instruct the agencies to come up with reasonable rules and 
regulations because they know how to build dams and know how to have 
airplanes that you can get off of in case of a crash and save people's 
lives and how to have fire-retardant seats and deal with other safety 
issues. There are abundant safety issues for the American public.
  This is a bad idea. It is an idea that will not create jobs. It will 
hurt the American public. It will hurt safety and possibly our 
financial safety as well because it could impede Dodd-Frank from going 
in to protect the American public from future financial doom like we 
almost saw in 2008 with derivatives here in this Congress.
  So I would ask that we vote ``no,'' that we protect the American 
public, and that we respect the system that we have had for so many 
years for safety and health.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  A year and a half ago, the President of the United States came to 
give his State of the Union address here in the House Chamber and stood 
at the podium just below where you're standing right now. He had a long 
list of legislative items he wanted the Congress to pass. At the 
conclusion of it he said, If you don't do it, I will. I'm paraphrasing, 
of course. The question that many of us had was: By what authority in 
the United States Constitution does the President of the United States 
have the ability to do something that he has come to the Congress to 
ask to be passed legislatively and to tell us, if we don't do it, he's 
going to do it himself in the executive branch?
  Well, the way he does it, when he's not stopped by lawsuits and other 
means, is he simply has regulations passed to accomplish those 
objectives. You know what? Thousands of regulations are passed every 
Congress compared to a few hundred laws that are passed. All we're 
asking here today is that for those regulations that cost the American 
people $100 million or more, that they have to come back here and be 
approved by the Congress rather than have executive fiat control that.
  This is the representative democracy here in the House of 
Representatives and in the United States Senate. This is the people's 
House. We have the authority to pass laws, and we definitely are 
concerned about the welfare and well-being of our American people. But 
when we add trillions of dollars in costs to the expenses of American 
families, $11,000 per family, that's a stunning thing to think about 
what money could have been spent on other things. Yes, of course, some 
of those regulations are necessary, but many of them are not. Many of 
them needlessly add cost and create an ever-growing bureaucracy in the 
executive branch. We need to have ways to rein that in.
  The most effective way to do that is to start with the largest 
regulation. Many people would say, well, we should do it for all 
regulations. That ought to be our objective, to make it very clear that 
we do not want to see regulations passed that are ineffective, that are 
needless, that add costs. Starting with those that cost more than $100 
million, it is absolutely appropriate for the elected representatives 
of the people to have the final say on whether those

[[Page H5314]]

regulations are, indeed, what the Congress intended when they passed 
the underlying laws upon which those regulations are based. That's all 
we ask in this legislation. It is reasonable. The American people want 
it. This Congress should pass it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I strongly support of the REINS Act.
  The American people today face an onslaught of unnecessary Federal 
regulations. From the President's health care law to the never-ending 
list of EPA rules, government regulation has become a barrier to 
economic growth and job creation.
  Congress hears from employers daily about the threat of Federal 
regulations to their businesses. These employers are rightly concerned 
about the cost of compliance that regulations impose on their 
businesses. Overly burdensome regulation diverts limited money and 
resources away from business investment and expansion to meet the 
government's demands. This harms the ability of business owners to 
create more jobs and boost local economies. That should motivate us to 
take action today.
  Rather than halt its efforts to expand government, the administration 
seeks to use the regulatory agencies to accomplish what it cannot get 
approved by Congress. The REINS Act ensures that Congress has the final 
say over whether Washington will impose major new regulations on the 
American economy. Specifically, the bill establishes a procedure for 
Congress to approve all new major regulations proposed by the 
administration.
  The President himself has expressed the risks that excessive 
regulations pose to our economy. He has called for reviews of existing 
regulations to provide relief. He has also made a commitment to make 
the regulatory process more transparent. However, the President has 
failed to deliver on these promises. Instead, the Obama administration 
has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the 
previous administration over the same time period.
  It is time for Congress to reverse this harmful trend in 
overregulation. The REINS Act holds the administration accountable for 
its unjustified regulatory assault on job creators. It guarantees that 
Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, will be the final arbiter of all 
new major regulatory costs.
  The American people want job creation and economic growth, not more 
regulation. The REINS Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations 
that burden the economy.
  I thank Mr. Young of Indiana for introducing this important 
legislation and I thank Chairman Goodlatte for taking up the REINS Act.
  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 are difficult to 
navigate. However, in my experience, regulations tend to be less 
stringent than necessary rather than overly strict. There are ways to 
make regulation more efficient and easier to navigate, but we must do 
so in a way that protects public health, maintains our environmental 
protections, and ensures fair market interactions.
  For the second time in less than two years, today Congress is 
considering H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Scrutiny Act. I oppose this legislation, as I did in 2011, and urge my 
colleagues to vote against it. This bill is an 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. This is how legislation is implemented. This bill 
would require both the House and the Senate to vote on every major 
regulation before that regulation can be enforced, providing only 
seventy days to do so. This allows Congress to effectively veto any 
legislation we have already passed, simply by taking no action and 
keeping agencies from moving forward with implementation. 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.
  We do not need to extend Congress's dysfunction to the rest of the 
federal government. I strongly oppose H.R. 367 and urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise today as a proud original 
cosponsor of H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Scrutiny--or REINS--Act.
  Far too much authority has been delegated to federal agencies, 
leading to a lack of accountability and massive Executive overreach 
through regulation. According to current procedure, major rules 
promulgated by agencies take effect unless Congress passes and the 
President signs a joint resolution disapproving them under the 
Congressional Review Act. The Obama Administration has abused this 
process time and time again to bypass the legislative branch to 
regulate what it cannot legislate, with $50 billion in new rules 
proposed this year alone and the overall cost of the current regulatory 
burden coming in at $1.8 trillion.
  At a time when nearly 12 million Americans are searching for work, 
the Obama Administration continues to burden the economy with 
cumbersome, bureaucratic regulations that harm small businesses and 
hamper economic growth. To make matters worse, this Administration has 
made a habit out of ignoring the legal obligation to transparency in 
the regulatory process. The constant flow of regulations has led to 
uncertainty and a lack of oversight, and Americans deserve a government 
that is truly accountable to the people.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 367 would restore Congressional accountability by 
requiring Congress and the President to approve major rules--those with 
an impact on the economy of more than $100 million--before they can be 
enforced, thereby allowing a means to stem the flow of unnecessary, 
complex, and ineffective regulations. Congress has the right and 
responsibility to exercise rigorous oversight over the rulemaking 
process to ensure that we reduce needless and excessive regulatory 
burdens, protect current jobs, and promote future growth. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 367.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the 
``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Need of Scrutiny Act.''
  Without question, this bill will have dangerous consequences for all 
Americans by creating an unworkable approval process that will make it 
nearly impossible for many new regulations to go into effect.
  It does this by imposing impossibly unrealistic deadlines by which 
Congress must consider and pass exceedingly complex and technical 
regulations in order for such regulations to take effect.
  Under H.R. 367, Congress would have only 70 legislative days within 
which to act after it receives a major rule.
  Now, let us put this in some perspective. Over the past few years, 
the average number of major rules promulgated each year is about 85.
  In 2010, for instance, 94 major rules were issued. But keep in mind 
the following fact: there were just 116 legislative days in the House 
during 2010.
  Worse yet, the bill restricts the days on which these major rules may 
be considered in the House, which--for last year--would have been just 
10 days.
  Assuming there is just an average number of major rules, the House 
would have to consider an average of 8 separate major rules on each of 
those days.
  And, if the REINS Act were to become law today, there would be only 5 
days left in 2013 on which the House could consider the merits of major 
rules.
  Under H.R. 367, there is just no way Congress could possibly have the 
time to consider all the major rules issued during the year.
  And, if Congress fails to act within this mandatory time frame, the 
regulation cannot be considered until the next Congress.
  Even Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a prior iteration of the 
REINS Act back in 1983. He said that such legislation would ``hobbl[e] 
agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative Congressional assent to all 
major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on the 
regulatory agencies.''
  The bottom line is that the bill would at least significantly delay 
rulemaking and at worst bring it to a halt.
  Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong 
regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of 
their lives.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, if the REINS Act 
were in effect now it would delay or possibly derail at least 32 major 
proposed regulations issued this year and 68 such rules issued last 
year.
  Among other things, these proposed regulations pertain to:
  reimbursement rates for end-stage renal disease Medicare providers;
  payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children 
Program;
  various Federal student loan programs;
  the Justice Department's National Standards to prevent, detect, and 
respond to prison rape;
  meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010;
  the Transportation Department's Certified Medical Examiners National 
Registry;
  Labor Department Standards for H-2B Aliens in the United States;
  the subsistence allowance for veterans under the Vocational 
Rehabilitation and Employment Program; and the Patent and Trademark 
Office's proposal setting and adjusting patent fees.

  And, this is just a small sample of the many kinds of protections 
that the REINS Act would jeopardize. I could go on and on.

[[Page H5315]]

  This explains why nearly 70 consumer groups, environmental 
organizations, labor unions, and other entities, strenuously oppose 
this bill.
  Likewise, the Administration issued a strongly worded veto threat 
against this bill. It warns that H.R. 367 ``would delay and, in many 
cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of 
duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed 
protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion.''
  Finally, H.R. 367 will give anti-regulatory interests yet another 
opportunity to derail rulemaking.
  Major rules are the product of an intensive, multi-year process, 
based on extensive input received from the public and affected entities 
through a notice and comment period.
  Agencies often spend many months, if not years, to perfect theses 
rules based on feedback from these sources and their own expertise.
  Under the bill's short-circuited process, however, Congress will not 
realistically be able to second-guess the merits of these rules.
  Instead, we in Congress will be bombarded with visits, phone calls, 
and talking points from industry lobbyists and well-funded special 
interests that can use every resource available to persuade us of the 
validity of their views.
  Superficially, it may seem like a good idea to make Congress the 
final arbiter of all significant regulatory decisions. After all, 
Members of Congress are elected and regulators are not.
  But realistically, we simply lack the expertise and resources to make 
the requisite prudential decisions about the bona fides of these rules, 
particularly given the limited time frame we have to act under the 
bill.
  An example of how this legislation would work:
  I recently introduced H.R. 2480, the Nurse and Health Care Worker 
Protection Act of 2013, which would require the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration to promulgate a regulation that protects our 
caretakers from debilitating injuries. Nursing professionals and health 
care aids have among the highest rates of back, neck, and shoulder 
injuries of any profession, due to the trauma of lifting, supporting, 
and repositioning patients. Through a straightforward regulation that 
promotes safe patient handling practices, including the use of 
mechanical devices, this regulation could save, millions of dollars 
each year, and countless years of experience.
  Now even if the House and Senate pass H.R. 2480 and the experts with 
OSHA develop the proper standards to prevent these debilitating 
injuries, under the REINS Act, any resulting regulations would have to 
be assessed by Congress and voted on in a short time frame. Let's be 
honest, who in this body know about ergonomics and the technical 
aspects of a nurse's day to day job?
  Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing 
this seriously flawed bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Congress adopted the current system over a 
hundred years ago because it recognized the necessity of assigning the 
job of crafting appropriate regulations to the scientific, economic, 
legal, and other experts in agencies. The REINS Act is an extreme 
departure from current procedures designed only to stymie the 
development of regulations with which the industry does not want to 
comply.
  The current system of administrative agencies of the federal 
government began more than 100 years ago, and developed through the 
20th century. It was codified in its present form in the Administrative 
Procedures Act. The REINS Act guts this precedent, and replaces it with 
insurmountable hurdles.
  Congress already has the power to stop regulations if extreme 
circumstances dictate under the Congressional Review Act. The REINS Act 
requires agencies to submit new final rules to Congress for review, 
delaying the effective date of those rules to permit Congress to block 
them, and establishes a fast-track process for legislation proposed to 
overrule a regulation.
  The bill would make it virtually impossible for an approval 
resolution to pass because it does not entirely prohibit a filibuster. 
Since the bill does not clearly prohibit a filibuster in the Senate, 
more specifically it does not prohibit a filibuster on a motion to take 
up a matter, it would empower a few, or even one Senator, to block 
regulations.
  The legislation gives Congress a short 70-day window to approve a 
regulation, and if either chamber fails to do so during that time 
period, the regulation is deemed to have been rejected, and Congress is 
barred from subsequently voting to approve the regulation or one 
``substantially similar'' to it for the remainder of that Congress. The 
70-day requirement will make it next to impossible for any regulations 
to be approved.
  Resolutions approving regulations would first have to be cleared by 
committees. The vast majority of bills introduced in Congress die in 
committee, and there is no reason to believe that new regulations 
wouldn't suffer the same fate.
  Claims about so-called ``job-killing'' regulations are a fabrication, 
a reiteration of the same doomsday rhetoric that has been used to 
oppose virtually every major step forward for health and safety. In 
actuality, the REINS Act is about giving representatives of industry 
more opportunities to kill regulations they find inconvenient, posing a 
great detriment to public safety and health.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, as modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 113-187, shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 367

       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 2013''.

     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. 
     The report of the Comptroller General shall include an 
     assessment of the agency's compliance with procedural steps 
     required by paragraph (1)(B) and an assessment of whether the 
     major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on private-
     sector activity.
       ``(B) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller 
     General by providing information relevant to the Comptroller 
     General's report under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) A major rule relating to a report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect upon enactment of a joint 
     resolution of approval described in section 802 or as 
     provided for in the rule following enactment of a joint 
     resolution of approval described in section 802, whichever is 
     later.

[[Page H5316]]

       ``(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.
       ``(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) A joint resolution described in subsection (a) shall 
     be referred to the committees in each House of Congress with 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(c) In the Senate, if the committee to which is referred 
     a joint resolution described in subsection (a) has not 
     reported such joint resolution (or an identical joint 
     resolution) at the end of 15 session days after the date of 
     introduction of the joint resolution, such committee may be 
     discharged from further consideration of such joint 
     resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 30 Members 
     of the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be placed on 
     the calendar.
       ``(d)(1) In the Senate, when the committee to which a joint 
     resolution is referred has reported,

[[Page H5317]]

     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
       ``(C) any rule of agency organization, procedure, or 
     practice that does not substantially affect the rights or 
     obligations of non-agency parties.
       ``(5) The term `submission date or publication date', 
     except as otherwise provided in this chapter, means--
       ``(A) in the case of a major rule, the date on which the 
     Congress receives the report submitted under section 
     801(a)(1); and
       ``(B) in the case of a nonmajor rule, the later of--
       ``(i) the date on which the Congress receives the report 
     submitted under section 801(a)(1); and
       ``(ii) the date on which the nonmajor rule is published in 
     the Federal Register, if so published.

     ``Sec. 805. Judicial review

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

     ``Sec. 806. Exemption for monetary policy

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

     ``Sec. 807. Effective date of certain rules

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

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

       Section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 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.''.

     SEC. 5. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY OF RULES.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be 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. Scalise

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, 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 5, line 17, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Moreover, as a tax on carbon emissions increases energy 
     costs on consumers, reduces economic growth and is therefore 
     detrimental to individuals, families and businesses, the 
     REINS Act includes in the definition of a major rule, any 
     rule that implements or provides for the imposition or 
     collection of a tax on carbon emissions.''.
       Page 20, strike lines 10 through 14, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(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--
       ``(A) has resulted in or is likely to result
       Page 20, line 15, redesignate subparagraph (A) as clause 
     (i).
       Page 20, line 17, redesignate subparagraph (B) as clause 
     (ii).
       Page 20, line 21, redesignate subparagraph (C) as clause 
     (iii).
       Page 20, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; or''. 
     Page 20, insert after line 25 the following:
       (B) is a rule that implements or provides for the 
     imposition or collection of a carbon tax.
       Page 22, insert after line 8 the following:
       ``(6) The term 'carbon tax' means a fee, levy, or price 
     on--
       ``(A) emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions 
     generated by the burning of coal, natural gas, or oil; or
       ``(B) coal, natural gas, or oil based on emissions, 
     including carbon dioxide emissions that would be generated 
     through the fuel's combustion.''.


[[Page H5318]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment forward on the 
REINS Act to simply prohibit the Obama administration from imposing a 
carbon tax on the United States. If they wanted to impose that kind of 
tax, they could not do it through regulation. Of course, we've heard 
the Obama administration, from President Obama to his EPA Administrator 
and others, talking about various forms of taxes on energy that they 
want to impose. Whether it's a carbon tax, whether it's a cap-and-
trade-type scheme, they've continued to throw out that opportunity to 
impose that kind of radical regulation by themselves without action 
from Congress.
  Clearly, as we talk about the REINS Act and we talk about any kind of 
regulation having over a $100 million impact on our economy, we want to 
make it very clear that any attempt to impose a carbon tax would fall 
under that same definition of ``major rule'' where they could not do it 
by regulation.
  If you look at what's been studied on this issue--again, this idea of 
a carbon tax has been floating around for a while by the Obama 
administration. In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers, Mr. 
Chairman, did a study, and it's titled ``The Economic Outcomes of a 
U.S. Carbon Tax.'' Let me tell you, it's not pretty some of the things 
that they talk about in this study.
  If the Obama administration had their way and imposed a tax on 
carbon, manufacturing output in energy-intensive sectors, for example, 
could drop by as much as 15 percent. We're talking real job losses that 
would come to this country.
  What would it do to families in terms of energy costs? How would it 
affect them? In the same study, they say, just in the first year of a 
carbon tax, we would see an increase in the cost of natural gas by more 
than 40 percent, and the price of gasoline at the pump would go up by 
20 cents a gallon. That's just in the first year of a carbon tax. It 
would have devastating impacts on our economy.
  Clearly, if you look at what President Obama and his administration 
officials are doing and saying, they want to keep the door open to 
impose a carbon tax through regulation. This amendment says absolutely 
not.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment to a bad bill, so 
it's doubly bad.
  This would take almost anything that protects the air, the water, the 
public from carbon emissions away from the opportunity of the EPA to 
protect us. Many cities, such as Houston, Texas, and L.A. and other 
cities, have problems with smog. They have programs that they have to 
put a price on pollutants that cause urban smog, and these programs are 
part of the State-approved implementation plans through the EPA to 
protect the air. They are improving the air quality in Houston and Los 
Angeles, but under this amendment, if Texas or California ever needed 
to change these programs, they wouldn't be able to do so. Los Angeles 
has had enough smog, so has Houston and the rest of the country, and we 
have to be able to have laws that effectively protect our air.
  Public health programs are important, and the amendment would risk 
the ability of EPA also to have its sanctions that they put into place. 
Right now, EPA, to ensure civil enforcement procedures, they change 
their penalties every 4 years to keep up with inflation so they're 
effective deterrents. This would stop this from happening, and 
eventually the deterrents would be less than necessary to stop bad 
actors from engaging in risky behavior that causes harm to the 
environment and harm to humans.
  We just saw in January that Transocean agreed to pay $1 billion to 
resolve Federal Clean Water Act civil penalty claims for the 3-month-
long oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the BP there. BP also has got the 
same risk. If we don't allow the penalties to be adjusted for 
inflation, they won't have an effect. The sanctions won't deter bad 
actors. We saw it in the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion, and we see it 
as it applies to the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, and all those others.
  The bottom line is this could have unintended consequences, but its 
intended consequence is to protect the oil industry from regulations 
and imperil the American public. This is a bad amendment to a bad bill, 
and I ask my colleagues to defeat it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, if I could go back to that National 
Association of Manufacturers study on the impact of a carbon tax, the 
gentleman from Tennessee might be interested in knowing that in 
Tennessee alone, in the first year of a carbon tax, household utilities 
would go up by 14 percent, and, in fact, they could experience job 
losses of up to 40,000 lost jobs just in the State of Tennessee in year 
one, with a 40 percent increase in their natural gas prices.
  I wanted to point that out, and then yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a good amendment to a good bill, and I support it.
  By requiring all new major regulations to be submitted to Congress 
for approval, the REINS Act provides a powerful check on overreaching 
executive action. This check could not come sooner. The Obama 
administration increasingly, and increasingly openly, is pursuing 
unilateral regulatory action to thwart Congress' decision not to pass 
legislation the administration desires. This includes legislation that 
would impose a carbon tax as part of the administration's climate 
agenda.
  The amendment guarantees that no carbon tax can be imposed unless 
Congress consents to it, no matter how much the Obama administration 
would like to impose such a dramatic tax by executive fiat. This is the 
people's House. This is where new public policy should be established, 
and this amendment is a good one to assure that this is where policy 
related to carbon taxes is made, not in the administration.

  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'll just reiterate that this is a bad amendment to a bad bill. It 
basically puts the interests of special industry--the gas and oil 
industry, particularly--above the American public's health, clean air, 
and the environment. If you want to have an Earth that we can give to 
the next generation that's in as good a shape so that their lungs can 
survive in it, you won't be for this type of regulation, this 
amendment, or for this bill.
  I ask us to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I just want to point out that clearly the Obama administration must 
be very interested in imposing a tax on carbon through regulation. The 
fact that the opposition has objected to this and stated all of the 
reasons that they think a carbon tax should be imposed tells you that 
they are holding out for that opportunity.
  Of course, if you look at the devastating impacts of a carbon tax--
there are a lot of good studies out there. Again, I go back to the 
National Association of Manufacturers. It's a very respected national 
organization, people that stand up for American jobs. The report they 
did, entitled, ``Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax,'' is 
devastating.
  Clearly, the administration wants to do this. If it's such a good 
idea, bring the idea to Congress; bring it through the House; bring it 
through the Senate. They could get their floor leaders in the Senate to 
bring it up tomorrow, but they don't want this kind of scrutiny.
  Just the other day, the President was in Tennessee bragging about all 
these new jobs plans that he has; and while he was doing it, 
ironically, in another State, his new EPA Administrator was talking 
about climate change. In fact, she called climate change the 
``opportunity of a lifetime,'' and that the EPA would continue to 
impose regulations

[[Page H5319]]

despite what we think here in Congress.
  That's not the way the legislative process works. That's not the 
system of government our great Founders created. They said, if an idea 
is so good, bring it to the people's House; bring it to the Senate, and 
pass it that way. Don't try to impose it through radical regulation and 
devastate our economy.
  I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. This amendment 
would prevent the President and the EPA from bypassing Congress and 
imposing a devastating national energy tax that would affect every 
American.
  Struggling Americans who have been unable to find a job or have not 
seen their paychecks grow would pay this national energy tax every time 
they pay their utility bills or fill up their gas tanks or go to the 
grocery store. It would also be another tax on manufacturers and 
another increased cost of doing business under the Obama 
administration.
  House Republicans have been fighting to fix our broken tax code to 
make it simpler, fairer and flatter for American families and 
businesses. We cannot let the Obama Administration make an end run 
around the Congress' Constitutional responsibility for tax policy and 
use the regulatory process to impose a national energy tax that will 
cost trillions of dollars in economic growth and lost opportunities for 
hard-working Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Scalise amendment--to ensure tax 
policy starts where the Constitution's Framers intended--here in the 
people's House.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCALISE. 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 gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1915


        Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, beginning on line 12, strike ``sections 804(2)(A), 
     804(2)(B), and 804(2)(C)'' and insert ``clauses (i) through 
     (iii) of section 804(2)(A) or within section 804(2)(B)''.
       Page 20, beginning on line 11, strike ``the 
     Administrator'', and insert ``--''
       ``(A) the Administrator''.
       Page 20, line 15, by redesignating subparagraph (A) as 
     clause (i).
       Page 20, line 17, by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 
     clause (ii).
       Page 20, line 21, by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
     clause (iii).
       Page 20, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 20, insert after line 25 the following:
       ``(B) is made by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and that would have a significant impact on 
     a substantial number of agricultural entities, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture (who shall publish such 
     determination in the Federal Register).''.
       Page 22, insert after line 8 the following:
       ``(6) The term `agricultural entity' means any entity 
     involved in or related to agricultural enterprise, including 
     enterprises that are engaged in the business of production of 
     food and fiber, ranching and raising of livestock, 
     aquaculture, and all other farming and agricultural related 
     industries.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the bipartisan Davis-Peterson 
amendment, which helps address the disconnect between the EPA and the 
agricultural community. Under our amendment, EPA rules that have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of agricultural entities--as 
determined by the Secretary of Agriculture--would be considered ``major 
rules.''
  Under the REINS Act, major rules need congressional approval. We view 
this as another way to give agriculture a stronger voice when it comes 
to EPA regulations. As I travel throughout the 13th District of 
Illinois and listen to farmers and producers, one of their top concerns 
is regulatory actions by EPA. Ag has been a bright spot in our economy. 
For every $1 billion in agriculture exports, more than 8,000 jobs are 
supported here at home. With USDA projecting $139.5 billion in ag 
exports for fiscal year 2013, American agriculture will support more 
than 1 million jobs.
  This is a good story, and my colleagues and I on the House 
Agriculture Committee do our best to tell it. However, our farmers 
remain concerned that the EPA does not understand production 
agriculture. These are concerns we take very seriously. We aren't the 
only ones that see this problem; EPA recognizes it as well. Acting 
Administrator For Water, Nancy Stoner, told me when I asked her if her 
agency was aware of the disconnect between EPA and the agricultural 
community:

       We are actively working with those groups to improve 
     communication on issues as to which we have had some 
     difficulties. And I will acknowledge that we have had some, 
     and we are doing the very best we can to improve that 
     situation.

  This amendment provides a solution to the problem by allowing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to examine EPA regs and identify those that 
have a significant impact on a significant number of agricultural 
entities. The USDA must be included in these decisions and equipped 
with the authority to identify these rules. This agency understands 
farmers and works best with them on a daily basis. We believe this 
amendment would improve communication between EPA and the USDA.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I yield myself an additional 30 
seconds.
  It would improve communication between the EPA and USDA, give 
agriculture a place at the table during the process, and ultimately 
result in getting government out of the way to allow our family farmers 
to do what they do best. I urge support of this bipartisan amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, again, this is just another amendment in 
another area in what's totally a bad concept. The basic concept is that 
any rule or regulation would have to go through a passage in both the 
House and the Senate and Presidential approval to become effective. And 
it would have to happen in committees only on Tuesdays or Thursday, and 
within 15 days they would have to pass it. Basically, this is creating 
a Rube Goldberg type of legislative mechanism that would thwart the 
creation of regulations and rules that protect the American public. 
That's just plumb wrong.
  What this does is tries to gut the EPA, and I'm shocked that my good 
friends on the other side of the aisle would try to gut the work of one 
of their great Presidents, Richard Nixon. He served in this House, 
served in the Senate, and 4 years as vice president. I think he almost 
eked out 5 years, he had some kind of ethically challenged problem when 
he was President, but he did create the EPA. He did some good 
environmental things. I think those things should be standards for the 
Republican Party. They should hold up the EPA and remember Richard 
Nixon as one of their party standard bearers, one of the men who served 
probably the longest time in a major capacity as President and Vice 
President and Senate leader. And his work on the House Un-American 
Activities Committee--we can't forget that in this House. To forget 
Richard Nixon and to minimize his work, I am just amazed, because 
that's one of the great heroes on the other side of the aisle, I 
believe.
  But the EPA is important. It was good work that he gave us, and it 
shouldn't be gutted. And to make these rules have to go through passage 
in the House and Senate, we know the House and the Senate don't get 
along. They mentioned we got the loan bill through. That's the first 
thing we've kind of done since we did the Violence Against Women and 
kind of saved the storm victims of Superstorm Sandy. We really haven't 
got much done. Oh, I forget, a couple of post offices, we

[[Page H5320]]

agreed on them. And maybe some coins for the Hall of Fame or something. 
But to get these major rules done, it wouldn't happen. And so we're 
jeopardizing the American public. I urge us to defeat this as a bad 
amendment to a bad bill. It is deleting the legacy of Richard Nixon.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I respect and thank the 
gentleman from Tennessee for his comments on Richard Nixon. However, I 
was not yet in kindergarten when Mr. Nixon served, so, therefore, I do 
not remember him creating the EPA, but I thank him for reminding me of 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for offering this amendment. It is another good amendment.
  I also want to say to my good friend from Tennessee that I was a 
little older when Richard Nixon was in office. We are not minimizing 
what he did; we are going to maximize the amount of attention that 
Congress pays to the EPA when they get it wrong, particularly when the 
Secretary of Agriculture determines that any regulation issued by the 
EPA will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
agricultural entities. We ought to take a look at that. As a result, it 
subjects such regulations to congressional approval before they can 
become effective.

  This is an important step to rein in what is often regarded as the 
most overreaching of all Federal regulatory agencies. The EPA's actions 
and proposals have been particularly problematic for America's farmers, 
including small farmers. This includes, for example, the EPA actions 
aimed at farm dust.
  The Secretary of Agriculture has a greater incentive than EPA to 
ensure that potential adverse impacts on agricultural entities have 
been adequately and accurately assessed. The amendment guarantees that 
regulation that should be characterized as major due to their impacts 
on agricultural entities will be so characterized and submitted to 
Congress for approval.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very worthy amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, was alive when Richard Nixon was 
doing his service, and I remember him getting on that helicopter, 
waving good-bye. There were regulations that made sure that he was able 
to get away from Washington and get home to California, and we need to 
make sure those regulations that might be impeded by this REINS Act are 
still in effect so that Presidents like him can make their escape.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I wonder, even though I don't remember Richard Nixon getting up and 
flying away, I wonder if the EPA would let that helicopter leave 
Washington, D.C., today.
  But I have to tell you, this is a commonsense, bipartisan amendment 
that gives our farmers a stronger voice and a better place at the table 
when EPA is considering these regulations that impact the ag community.
  And I want to thank Ranking Member Peterson for supporting this 
effort as well. I urge my colleagues' support. I want to say thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Tennessee for making this actually a 
lively debate tonight. And hopefully a few more viewers on C-SPAN are 
smiling this evening because of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, beginning on line 12, strike ``sections 804(2)(A), 
     804(2)(B), and 804(2)(C)'' and insert ``clauses (i) through 
     (iii) of section 804(2)(A) or within section 804(2)(B)''.
       Page 20, beginning on line 11, strike ``the 
     Administrator'', and insert ``--''
       ``(A) the Administrator''.
       Page 20, line 15, by redesignating subparagraph (A) as 
     clause (i).
       Page 20, line 17, by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 
     clause (ii).
       Page 20, line 21, by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
     clause (iii).
       Page 20, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 20, insert after line 25 the following:
       ``(B) is made under the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act (Pub. Law 11-148).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have traveled across the Eighth Congressional 
District of Missouri from my hometown of Salem to the Ozark Hills in 
Wright County, Douglas, Howell County, to the banks of the Mississippi 
River, one of the largest concerns that my constituents have is the 
uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act.
  Individuals are concerned about the relationship with their doctor 
and what their costs are going to be. Businesses are left with a 
tremendous uncertainty. They are understaffed because they are afraid 
to hire additional employees, and they're also firing employees just to 
fall below the 50 individual threshold.
  The effects of the Affordable Care Act are adversely affecting health 
care and the jobs of folks all across this great country. That is why 
I'm offering my amendment to revise the definition of major regulations 
to include any regulation under the Affordable Care Act. With over 
3,000 pages of Federal regulations already issued, and many more to 
follow, Congress must prevent this widely unsupported law from causing 
further damage to our health care system.
  Mr. Chairman, there is broad bipartisan opposition to the Affordable 
Care Act. The administration has demonstrated its own certainty through 
the delays to several key provisions of the bill. Congress must assert 
its role in oversight and give the American people their voice back in 
government, away from the bureaucrats. My amendment does just that. I 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a microcosm of this 113th Congress; 
the macro has been the 40th attempt coming up to repeal ObamaCare. This 
is a microcosm to try to defeat ObamaCare through a little regulation. 
It seems like the preoccupation that the other side has with what is 
one of the most important social safety network provisions passed by 
this House in history, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and then 
the Affordable Care Act, is amazing. We've had 40 bills, and now this 
rule and regulation, to try to repeal the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act means your child can 
stay on your insurance unless they are 26 years of age. It means you 
can't have lifetime caps on your health insurance. It means you can't 
be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. It means that 
being a woman doesn't classify you as having a preexisting condition. 
It says that certain care comes to you, like colonoscopies or 
mammograms, without a copay, and it means yearly annual checkups, which 
can detect disease early and save people's lives. It is a way to 
provide health care for at least 40 million people in this country who 
don't have health care.
  And it has already been shown to drive down the cost of health care. 
For those States that have worked with us and that have exchanges, we 
have seen reductions in what was expected to be the cost of insurance 
from 25 to 30 to even 50 percent in different States. Health care costs 
are not rising at the rates that they were otherwise because of the 
fact that we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  It's important that individuals get more community health centers, 
which come with this provision. Lots of people, particularly in my 
district, they

[[Page H5321]]

don't live near hospitals and doctors. They need community health 
centers, and community health centers have been funded and created to 
give people access to health care otherwise denied.
  We are the last industrialized country on the face of the Earth to 
provide health care for its people, the last industrialized country to 
do so. That is one of the shames that we have tried to cure with this 
bill.
  And this provision, this amendment to this REINS Act, would deny 
people that health care coverage. It would say if you have a 
preexisting condition, too bad, you don't get insurance.
  As President Obama said, the Affordable Care Act is insurance reform 
on steroids. Do you want to have the health insurance industry have 
total control without regulations, without controls, then you want to 
defeat it. But the American public doesn't want that. They want their 
health care costs to contained, and they don't want the insurance 
companies to have total control. They like the idea of their children 
having insurance up to the time they're 26, and to have preventive care 
come without copays, not have yearly caps on your insurance or lifetime 
caps on your insurance benefits that can be paid out.
  So this is a sad state that we've spent so much time in this Congress 
trying to deny people health care and save their lives.
  So this is a bad amendment. I would ask us to defeat it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the fine 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him 
and support this important amendment.
  The REINS Act restores to Congress the accountability for regulatory 
decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. This amendment 
strengthens congressional accountability for regulations under the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You know, ObamaCare? That 
legislation that has 400 new authorities, 400 new ways for the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services and other bureaucrats to 
regulate the American people, businesses, large and small, local 
governments, State governments, health care providers?
  Yeah, that one. Imposed over the will of the American people, 
implementation of ObamaCare has demonstrated that the act imposes a 
detrimental and unworkable reform of the Nation's health care system. 
And one after another, promises made to the American people by the 
act's supporters when the law was passed have been broken.
  Moreover, the Obama administration's own actions to waive or suspend 
ObamaCare requirements have made clear that regulatory actions to 
implement the act form a ``seamless web.''
  Too often, actions to avoid one adverse effect of the act's 
implementation send ripple effects of unfairness or other harmful 
consequences throughout the ObamaCare web, requiring adjustments to 
other aspects of implementation.
  This, too, justifies the amendment's requirement that Congress 
approve any new regulation promulgated under the act, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this excellent amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, what this shows is exactly what the 
situation is. You've got a majority in the House that's against the 
Affordable Care Act, and you've got a majority in the Senate that's for 
it.
  To have any rules and regulations under it go into effect, the House 
and the Senate would both have to approve it, which means you could 
have one House, not both Houses, the way we work, it's a bicameral 
legislature and the House and the Senate have to work together and pass 
the bill to become law.
  But one House, by not passing it, could kill it--one House veto. This 
Republican Congress could veto every single regulation under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  And then preexisting conditions, no insurance. Lifetime caps, back in 
effect. Yearly caps, back in effect. Child's 23, nope, can't stay on 
dad and mom's policy anymore.
  Get hurt, go broke. Too bad. That's just wrong.
  And that's what this would do for any regulations. One House could 
veto and kill legislation. That's antithetical to the bicameral 
legislature.
  That's just one of the many reasons why we should defeat this 
amendment, defeat the bill, and go on and try to pass a jobs bill, and 
kill sequester, and see that the National Institutes of Health, which 
is cut $1.6 billion by sequester, isn't cut.
  That's our Department of Defense. They protect us from Alzheimer's, 
AIDS, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's. Those are the 
enemies. The National Institutes of Health is the Department of 
Defense, and we shouldn't be cutting $1.6 billion from them because 
we're all going to be victims.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is truly a jobs bill. When you're looking at over 
170,000 pages of Federal rules and regulations that affect jobs, this 
amendment will help alleviate that.
  As I've traveled across the Eighth Congressional District, I've had 
businesses, one after the other, that said they had 56 employees. Well, 
they were going to reduce those employees because of one piece of 
legislation that was passed out of this Chamber that Congress never 
even took the time to read until after they passed it, and yet they've 
even passed it.
  The problem with the Affordable Care Act is it affects more than one-
sixth of our Nation's economy; and because of the burdensome 
regulations that are being promulgated from the Affordable Care Act, 
businesses are scared to death to hire additional employees, and they 
are firing additional employees.
  I have had restaurant owners in our district that have sold 
restaurants because they want to fall below the 50-employee mark.
  Folks, this is a jobs bill. Less government regulation that is 
breaking the backs of small businesses is what we need to do to turn 
this country around.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to adopt this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 gentleman from Missouri 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Latham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, line 15, insert before ``intended to implement'' 
     the following: ``taken by or that will be taken by the 
     Federal agency promulgating the rule that are''.
       Page 6, line 17, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 6, after line 17, insert the following (and 
     redesignate provisions accordingly):
       ``(v) a list of any other related regulatory actions taken 
     by or that will be taken by any other Federal agency with 
     authority to implement the same statutory provision or 
     regulatory objective that are intended to implement such 
     provision or objective, of which the Federal agency 
     promulgating the rule is aware, as well as the individual and 
     aggregate economic effects of those actions; and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, while my amendment is very simple, it's 
aimed at addressing a very complex problem, the problem of duplicative 
and conflicting Federal regulations.
  In the underlying bill, Federal agencies are required to submit, 
along with the rule they want Congress to approve, a list of other 
regulatory actions to implement the same statute or regulatory 
objective, in other words, Mr. Chairman, to actually investigate 
whether the regulations may be redundant.

[[Page H5322]]

  It's not clear whether the requirement to list other regulatory 
actions applies only to the promulgating agency or other agencies. The 
amendment clarifies that this list must include related regulatory 
actions by any other Federal agency.
  Earlier this year, the GAO delivered to Congress its third annual 
report on duplication in government programs, identifying 17 specific 
areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication where multiple 
programs and activities are creating inefficiencies.
  Unfortunately, these inefficiencies result in regulatory duplication, 
heaping needless costs and paperwork on businesses at a time when our 
economy continues to struggle enough already.
  A group run by former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently 
compiled information on regulations in the specific problem areas 
identified by the GAO, using the government database contained by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This report found 470 
related paperwork requirements, 642 million hours of regulatory 
duplication involving 990 Federal forms, and at least $20 billion in 
compliance costs to employees.
  Take these examples:
  We have three agencies issuing regulations on catfish inspections, at 
a cost of 2 million work hours and $146 million in compliance costs.
  Ten different agencies handle Medicare forms submitted by health care 
providers, generating 486 million hours of paperwork and 281 different 
forms.
  Nine different agencies administer higher education assistance 
programs, involving 66 Federal forms and duplication, resulting in 47 
million hours of paperwork at a compliance cost of $3 billion.
  Congress must act to eliminate or consolidate duplicate and 
inefficient programs; but in the meantime, agencies must at least 
acknowledge requirements imposed by other agencies working on the same 
issues and work to minimize burdens on our small businesses.
  According to the Small Business Administration, it already costs 
American businesses at least $8,000 and often more than $10,000 per 
employee to comply with Federal regulations.
  It's no wonder that the massive Federal regulatory regime is 
consistently cited as a roadblock to job growth and economic recovery. 
I believe this amendment will help clarify areas of overlap and 
highlight opportunities for reducing the compliance burden faced by 
American employers.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because 
it would add yet another onerous and unnecessary burden on agencies and 
will further stifle agency rulemaking.
  Among other things, the REINS Act requires that an agency issuing a 
rule submit reports to Congress and the GAO containing a list of 
related regulatory actions intended to implement the same statutory 
provision or regulatory objective as the rule at issue, together with 
the individual and aggregate economic effects of those actions.
  This amendment would add to that list actions taken, or that will be 
taken, by Federal agencies other than the agency issuing the rule to 
meet the same objectives. Such a requirement means that an agency 
issuing a rule would now be obliged to survey the vast panoply of 
Federal agencies to determine what other actions are being taken by 
other agencies before it could issue a rule.
  Congress did not create agencies, Mr. Chairman, to keep tabs on other 
agencies. This amendment would only serve to divert already limited 
agency resources away from protecting the American people.
  This amendment is just a further effort to derail rulemaking. It's 
placing another burden on already limited agency resources and is 
really just busy work.
  So for those reasons I rise in opposition.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding, 
and I support his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, interrelated Federal regulations are a common feature 
of the modern regulatory landscape. Numerous major regulations form 
part of a web of regulations agencies develop to implement one 
statutory division or one statutory goal.
  In addition, numerous regulatory statutes entrust rulemaking 
authority over a given problem to more than one agency. This is the 
case, for example, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's and 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' joint authority over wetlands. It is 
also the case with the EPA's and the Department of Transportation's 
joint authority over fuel economy standards.
  The amendment requires that agencies, when they submit new major 
regulations to Congress for approval, provide a list of related 
regulatory actions that the submitting agency or other agencies have 
taken or will take to implement the same statutory provision or 
regulatory objective. Seems pretty reasonable to me to have to find out 
what other regulations are impacting the same objective.

  This helpful amendment will provide Congress with more complete 
information on the extent of regulations agencies have taken or plan to 
take to implement an authorizing statute or achieve a regulatory goal. 
That information will better enable Congress to determine whether to 
approve or disapprove the submitted regulation.
  This can only improve congressional accountability and the regulatory 
process, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in response, I would point out 
that with respect to interrelated regulations, different regulatory 
authorities have different regulatory objectives. And so, to require 
that one agency survey the other to see whether or not there are any 
similar or the same objectives, with no power or authority to decide to 
do away with a particular regulation, based on an objective that is no 
longer suitable, I think, is not something that this amendment allows 
for; and it's also something that agencies themselves are not equipped 
to do.
  I agree that we need to have some mechanism whereby regulatory 
regulations can be looked at, modified, strengthened or weakened or 
done away with at any particular time. But this anti-regulatory 
legislation and this amendment will not accomplish that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time there is.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 15 seconds remaining. 
The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LATHAM. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just obviously be very brief. But 
the gentleman was talking earlier about opposing this amendment because 
it creates busy work for the agencies.
  What about the busy work of the small businesses to comply with these 
mountains and mountains of regulations?
  And the previous speakers have said the biggest reason that people 
are not hiring today is because of the cost of regulations.
  I would ask for this amendment to be passed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.

[[Page H5323]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, 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 6, line 24, insert before the semicolon the following: 
     ``, including an analysis of any jobs added or lost, 
     differentiating between public and private sector jobs''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, tonight we engage this House to talk about some 
commonsense legislation that would, in fact, allow the American people 
and this Congress to understand more about rules and regulations as 
they are presented that the American people have to live under.
  My amendment requires that an agency submitting a report on any 
proposed Federal rule include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained 
or lost as a result of the implementation of any rules that fit within 
the REINS Act.
  This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because many times rules and 
regulations are implemented without regard for what the impact would be 
on the people who have to live under them. We believe this is common 
sense. We believe this happens in businesses every day. We're asking 
for a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the rules that are 
written, combined with the impact that they would have upon job losses, 
whether it be the government or the free enterprise system.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment presupposes that 
regulations depress job creation. To the contrary, there's no credible 
evidence that regulations depress job creation.
  The majority's own witness at one of our hearings clearly debunked 
the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth of 
the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think thank, stated 
in his prepared remarks that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to 
confusion in regulatory debates.'' Also, he stated that ``the 
employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
  Nonetheless, I appreciate that this amendment recognizes that 
regulations could create jobs. I am, however, concerned about this 
amendment because it would add to the analytical burdens of agencies a 
speculative assessment of jobs added and lost and how many of those 
jobs would be added or lost to the public and private sectors.
  To the extent that regulations have anything to do with jobs, H.R. 
367 proponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment, which is 
upcoming, which simply exempts from H.R. 367's congressional approval 
mechanism all rules that OMB determines would result in net job 
creation. This way, job creating rules would not effectively be vetoed, 
which would be the precise result under H.R. 367.
  Also, instead of trying to make Congress a superadministrative 
agency, what we should be doing is considering actual job creation 
legislation. We also should be talking about how to help middle class 
families who are struggling financially.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the opportunity to 
rise in support of this important amendment and to rise in support 
overall of the REINS Act, a critical tool in the battle against 
overregulation, which is destroying jobs.
  The gentleman from Georgia talked about whether or not regulations 
actually destroy jobs. Well, from my home State of Kentucky, I can tell 
you we've lost 5,700 coal mining jobs in east Kentucky as a result of 
this administration's overzealous overregulation of our coal industry.
  Small business owners from across Kentucky continually tell me that 
they want to create more jobs and grow their businesses. They want to 
help put food on the table, gas in the tank, and more money in the 
pockets of Kentucky families, who are hurting under this 
administration's war on coal. But costly and burdensome regulations 
coming out of unaccountable Federal agencies are raising their cost of 
doing business, leading to higher prices for consumers, fewer jobs for 
workers, and weakened American competitiveness.
  While Federal regulations wreak havoc on families in Kentucky, small 
businesses, and our overall economy, the unelected, unaccountable 
bureaucrats writing them are hiding behind the fact that they are not 
always required to fully analyze the impact their proposal will have on 
jobs.
  If you want to know about the impact of these regulations on jobs, 
come to eastern Kentucky and see those lost jobs.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In response, Mr. Chairman, I would say that 
the old ways of creating or producing energy--those ways that foul up 
our environment and pollute our air and water and cause health concerns 
to the people of this great Nation--those types of jobs, fortunately, 
yield to a brighter day of new renewable and clean forms of energy. 
That's a growth industry that, if this legislature could only see the 
brightness of the future, I think we would have a whole lot more jobs 
created as the jobs of the past recede into history.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we see 25 million people struggling in 
this country as a result of that same attitude that the Democrat Party 
and the President has about having jobs go off into the past and 
looking to the future.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I would like to thank my colleague from 
Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm a proud cosponsor of this amendment. This is a 
commonsense amendment that brings to mind the irony that, yesterday, 
the President of the United States came to the Capitol to brief certain 
Members of Congress on the other side of the aisle about another phony 
jobs plan that he's putting forth at the same time his signature 
legislation, ObamaCare, is killing jobs in America.

  This amendment would make sure that we measured how many jobs his 
phony jobs plan is going to create versus how many jobs ObamaCare is 
going to kill in this country. It is essential.
  And forgive me, Mr. Chairman, for not having compassion for the 
bureaucrats who are going to be burdened by analyzing this information, 
when we have millions of Americans--hardworking taxpayers of this 
country--worried about keeping their own jobs and getting a new job.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment wholeheartedly.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, ObamaCare is resulting in 30 to 
40 million people having access to the health care system, and that's 
not going to create any jobs? When you're bringing that many people 
into the health care system, that's going to kill jobs? How many more 
doctors will be needed? Maybe 20,000 will be needed to accommodate and 
treat those people. How many nurses and medical care practitioners will 
we need to train in order to accommodate the growth in the health 
industry that ObamaCare brings about?
  We have to use our common sense. ObamaCare is not going to result in 
job loss.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. I find it interesting that today we're talking about the 
country is in such danger because of ObamaCare and regulations and 
rules and all these other things President Obama has done, and the Dow 
Jones Industrial average almost hit an all-time high of 15,600 and 
change.
  So somewhere something must be working. Thank you, President Obama. 
Keep going.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman is expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

[[Page H5324]]

  Mr. WENSTRUP. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor, I rise in support of this important 
amendment to protect and promote job creation in both southern Ohio, 
where I'm from, and for this entire country.
  Business owners and entrepreneurs currently live and work under an 
executive branch hostile to the free enterprise system and a President 
whose governing philosophy has been: You didn't build that.
  Agencies like the EPA, Health and Human Services, and the Department 
of Education hand down new regulations with little regard for the real-
world impacts. These bureaucrats do not care if jobs are lost, as long 
as their rules are enforced.
  This amendment requires an analysis of how many jobs would be added 
or lost due to new regulations brought forth under this or any future 
administrations. This amendment also requires the distinction as to 
whether the jobs affected are government or private sector jobs.
  This amendment further protects real-world businesses from 
bureaucrats who are often punitive rather than constructive and are 
often far removed from everyday economic realities.
  I stand in support of this amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, tonight, we've had three new first-term 
Members of Congress who have come on the floor to talk about things 
that are important to them, and it's a balance. It's making a 
difference so that people back home have confidence in the rules and 
regulations that are promulgated by the Federal Government and that 
Congress knows how we can react and act upon those.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, 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 20, line 10, insert after ``means any rule'' the 
     following: ``(other than a special rule)''.
       Page 21, line 2, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and includes any special rule''.
       Page 22, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule pertaining to 
     nuclear reactor safety standards.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission from the bill so that the NRC can continue to protect 
Americans from nuclear disasters under current law, rather than the 
bill's proposed system.
  Today's bill, H.R. 367, in the name of so-called reform, adds over 60 
new procedural and analytical hoops agencies and departments must go 
through before a regulation can be issued. The result is simply to 
impede, obstruct, and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one 
of it's most basic functions: protecting the health and welfare of its 
citizens.
  Not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health, 
safety, and the environment, such as the Natural Resources Defense 
Counsel, Public Citizens, Defenders of Wildlife, and U.S. Public 
Interest Research Group, oppose this bill. According, to the Coalition 
for Sensible Safeguards, which represents a coalition of many such 
groups, this bill ``will grind to a halt the rulemaking process'' and 
``is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our critical public 
safeguards and promote industry interests instead of protecting 
American citizens.''

                              {time}  2000

  Americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their 
health and safety at risk. One example that highlights this fact is the 
subject of this amendment--nuclear power.
  The risks and dangers of nuclear power were made all the more real by 
the nuclear disaster in Japan at Fukushima 2 years ago. We all watched 
in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and 
resulting tsunami. That disaster then caused its own disaster--the 
meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. That 
led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20-
kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, and displacement of 
156,000 people. Inside the evacuation zone all farming has been 
abandoned.
  In 2011, Virginia itself was struck by a relatively rare but strong 
earthquake felt up and down the eastern seaboard. It caused a nuclear 
power plant near the epicenter to have to go offline. For me, this 
concern hits close to home. A nuclear power plant, Indian Point, about 
which many people, myself included, have had concerns for years, lies 
just less than 40 miles away from my New York City district on an 
earthquake fault. There are 20 million people living within a 50-mile 
radius around the plant, the same radius used by the NRC as the basis 
for the evacuation zone recommended after the Fukushima disaster. 
Indian Point also sits near two fault lines and, according to the NRC, 
is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience 
core damage due to an earthquake.
  To keep my constituents, and indeed all Americans, safe, I am 
offering this amendment today. Because of the catastrophes that can 
result in disasters--be they natural or manmade--at nuclear power 
plants, prevention of meltdowns is the key. Since Fukushima, the NRC 
has issued new rules designed to upgrade plants to withstand severe 
events like earthquakes and to have enough backup power so as to avoid 
a meltdown for a significant period of time.
  The NRC must have the ability and flexibility to issue new 
regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans and 
to prevent nuclear disasters. However, this bill is intentionally 
designed so new and vital regulations will likely never be put into 
place. We cannot permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to never be 
able to create new regulations ever again should the need arise.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to exempt 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the onerous new requirements for 
rulemaking imposed by this bill. In that way, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission would continue to have the ability to safeguard public 
health and safety, as it should.
  We should not risk the lives of millions and millions of people. If a 
danger becomes evident and the experts in charge of protecting against 
that--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--deem some new protection 
necessary, this bill would prevent those protections from going into 
effect. So my amendment would exempt the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
with respect to safety regulations for nuclear power plants.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act Congressional 
Approval Procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor 
safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in nuclear safety. We 
want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear 
reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made. That is 
precisely why I oppose the amendment.
  By its terms, the amendment shields from the REINS Act Congressional 
Approval Procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear 
reactor safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them. 
All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards, 
whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS 
Act. That way, agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety will 
know that Congress must approve their major regulations

[[Page H5325]]

before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the 
agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can 
easily approve. It is a solution that everyone should support because 
it makes Congress more accountable and assures agencies will write 
better rules. All Americans will be safer for it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, under current law, Congress can disapprove any proposed 
rule and regulation under the Congressional Review Act. Under this 
bill, no regulation could go into effect until Congress affirmatively 
approved the regulation. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were to 
approve some rule that reduces nuclear safety, Congress, under current 
law, could block that rule.
  What this bill says, and what my amendment seeks to exempt the NRC 
from, is that no safety regulation can go into effect until Congress 
gets around to approving it. The Republican leadership took the 
appropriations bill for the Transportation and Housing and Urban 
Development Departments off the floor yesterday allegedly because they 
have no time to consider it. We've passed all of 12 bills this year for 
the President's signature, and we would have hundreds or thousands of 
regulations by all the different agencies that we would have to 
consider. Most would never be approved simply because we would not have 
time to consider them.
  All this amendment says is, for regulations regarding nuclear 
disasters, to prevent nuclear disasters, let Congress veto them if 
necessary, but not kill them by not having the time to get to them.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that, when it comes to 
regulatory safety, the gentleman cites the Congressional Review Act. 
I'll remind the House that, as I noted earlier, since 1996, it's been 
used one time for ergonomic furniture. That is not a very good track 
record when tens of thousands of regulations have been passed during 
that time that should be reviewed by this Congress. This legislation 
only asks that those regulations that cost more than $100 million 
should be reviewed. But it's especially true of the most important 
regulations related to, for example, the nuclear power industry where 
safety is a very important standard, as is efficiency and making sure 
that the American people have the electric power generation that they 
need. So the Congress has great incentive to reach quick agreement on 
regulations like that, and it's very important that we have that 
jurisdiction.
  But many regulations are not needed; they cost jobs in our economy. I 
know those on the other side of the aisle have been citing academics 
who claim that that's not the case. But I want to call attention to one 
more academic who wrote just on January 18, 2011. He said:

       Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing 
     unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled 
     innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.

  That academic's name is Barack Obama, and he is currently the 
President of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 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 20, line 10, insert after ``means any rule'' the 
     following: ``(other than a special rule)''.
       Page 21, line 2, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and includes any special rule''.
       Page 22, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that the 
     Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget determines 
     would result in net job growth.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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 rise in support of my 
amendment, which is very simple: it would exclude from this bill any 
rule that would result in net job growth.
  I ask that my colleagues support this commonsense amendment to 
promote job growth and help to strengthen the middle class. After all, 
the stated purpose of the REINS Act is to grow the economy and create 
jobs, isn't that correct?
  Although this bill purports to grow the economy and create jobs, 
nothing could be further from the truth. This bill's myopic focus on 
gumming up the regulatory process will not create a single job. It 
will, however, result in the loss of much-needed rules that protect the 
health, safety, and well-being of the men, women, and children of 
America.
  I have profound concerns about the REINS Act. What would be its 
impact on air and water quality? This bill would undermine the ability 
of agencies to protect the public interest. It is a continuation of the 
majority's anti-middle class, pro-big business, anti-regulatory 
approach to governing.
  The majority continues to rely on debunked partisan studies. Thee 
studies presuppose that regulations have harmful effects on job growth. 
Far from it. There is ample bipartisan evidence in support of the 
opposite conclusion.
  Regulations ensure that the water we consume, the air that we 
breathe, the places where we work and where our kids go to school are 
safe. Regulations ensure fairness in the workplace and in the 
marketplace. Regulations are necessary to protect the have-nots from 
the haves; whereas the REINS Act protects the haves from the have-nots.
  Nevertheless, the House Republican leadership continues like an out-
of-control freight train to drive its reckless deregulatory agenda 
through Congress. This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us 
back in time to the early 1900s, when there was no minimum wage, no 
workplace protections, and no limits on Wall Street.
  If Republican leadership truly believed in growing the economy and 
creating jobs we would have come together with a grand bargain a long 
time ago. We could have agreed to a mix of spending cuts and tax 
reforms to address the government's long-term debt. We could have 
prevented the mindless austerity of sequestration which threatens our 
still-fragile economic recovery. Instead, this Tea Party Congress could 
not even muster the will to vote to fund the transportation bill 
yesterday. This is yet another example of a ``do-nothing'' Congress 
under the leadership of an anti-middle class Republican leadership.
  Americans have a right to expect that their elected legislators will 
enact laws that help create jobs, like doing something about 
sequestration. My colleague, Mr. Hal Rogers, chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, hit the nail on the head yesterday when he 
said, and I quote:
  ``Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary 
cuts--must be brought to an end.''
  American workers continue to face hurdles to providing for their 
families, and I'm gravely concerned about the effects of sequestration 
on my home State of Georgia. Last month, furloughs began for most 
civilian Defense Department employees at Robins Air

[[Page H5326]]

Force Base and other military bases across Georgia. This won't just 
affect the hardworking people at the base, like firefighters; it will 
also have a substantial impact on the local economies.
  As retired General Robert McMahon reports, the furloughs which began 
last week will take $50 million out of the economy around the Robins 
Air Force Base alone. Multiply that with the economic catastrophe 
across other military bases in Georgia and throughout the country, and 
you begin to understand the truly caustic effects of sequestration on 
small businesses and on the economy. But instead of working together to 
come to a bipartisan solution to the sequestration fiasco, this 
Congress is continuing an agenda to make life worse for American 
families.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to 
promote job creation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS 
Act Congressional Approval Procedures regulations that the Office of 
Management and Budget determined 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 regulations job impact. Far too 
often, OMB may be tempted to shave the analysis to skirt the bill's 
congressional approval requirement. In addition, regulations alleged to 
create 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 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's no guarantee that all 
of the new green jobs will ever actually exist. And I would cite 
Solyndra as perhaps the best evidence of promised jobs that don't exist 
and cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars.
  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 far too long, 
where there is no accountability because decisions are made by 
unelected agency officials.

                              {time}  2015

  The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice. Let me give 
you a few examples of this:
  Regulatory agencies routinely estimate the benefits and costs of 
regulatory changes under the assumption that any individuals that 
become unemployed are instantly and constantly reemployed in nearly 
identical jobs. But the EPA's employment impact analysis is frequently 
flawed because it fails to account for the cascading employment effects 
of regulation across interconnected industries and markets.
  Using the proper full economy model, NERA Economic Consulting found 
that the EPA's Utility MACT Rule would have a negative impact 
equivalent to 180,000 to 215,000 lost jobs in 2015, versus the EPA's 
claim of 8,000 net new jobs, and which, therefore, wouldn't come to the 
Congress, even though private consultants say it would lose over 
200,000 jobs. EPA claims it would create 8,000 jobs.
  The EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would have had an economic 
impact equivalent to the annual--annual--loss of 34,300 jobs from 2013 
through 2037 versus the EPA's claimed 700 jobs gained annually.
  Finally, the EPA's industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology--or MACT--Rule would have a negative impact equivalent to 
27,585 jobs per year on average from 2013 through 2037, compared with 
the EPA's claim of 2,200 per year claim.
  All of this goes to show that this would be a shell game allowing the 
executive branch to claim job increases when actually there are massive 
job losses and, therefore, avoid the scrutiny of the people's House and 
the entire United States Congress where these massive regulations 
should come back for review and approval before they're implemented, 
and before they cost those kind of jobs to Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The right to close will not be established until 
the time in opposition is claimed.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is it the proponent or the author of the amendment?
  The Acting CHAIR. Under clause 3(c) of rule XVII, a manager in 
opposition would have the right to close.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 20, line 10, insert after ``means any rule'' the 
     following: ``(other than a special rule)''.
       Page 21, line 2, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and includes any special rule''.
       Page 22, after line 8, insert the following:
       ``(6) The term `special rule' means any rule that is 
     promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues. Whenever 
they engage in debate, I know they have a serious commitment to the 
process of this House and this Nation.
  But I rise today to offer an amendment, and I hope that it addresses 
the chairman's offer of legislative collegiality. If this is such an 
important effort, then I believe that the amendments that have been 
offered by my colleagues, and the one that I introduce as we speak, are 
ones that makes this bill reasonable.
  My amendment would except from the bill's congressional approval 
requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security 
organized and established in the backdrop of the heinous and tragic 
terrorist act of 9/11. In fact, I can't imagine this legislation being 
effective in the midst of tragedy and devastation.
  I don't think my friend understands that there's nothing in the REINS 
Act that prevents a filibuster. A filibuster means that we will never 
get a resolution voted on by the two Houses--never--because it does not 
negate a filibuster.
  So in the midst of a crisis, where people are in need of relief by 
the Department of Homeland Security, such as the Department of Homeland 
Security having to act quickly to establish new or emergency 
regulations in the protection of critical infrastructure, here it 
comes, the dastardly REINS Act. I think we would be better off right 
now to be debating H.R. 900 to eliminate the sequestration to bring 
jobs back to America.
  But I hope that this amendment will be considered, because I can't 
imagine the very Department that was established to put its foot in the 
gap now is going to be hindered by the REINS Act.

[[Page H5327]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from 
Texas that the bill prohibits a filibuster in the Senate from being 
used to block consideration of regulations that come before the 
Congress.
  We are making every effort to have that bipartisan collegiality that 
she suggests, but I don't think this amendment accomplishes that. The 
amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security 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 driver's licenses under the REAL 
ID Act. More than a decade after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent 
licenses to board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, 
DHS continues to keep this extension in place.
  This is the kind of decisionmaking 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, and the REINS Act is available to do that.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to support the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
  To the contrary, to my good friend from Virginia, the bill does not 
entirely prohibit a filibuster. In fact, a filibuster can be used on 
the procedural motion to bring the bill up, and in the Senate they can 
never bring this up.
  So let me remind my friends:
  Galveston, 6,000 people dead and climbing, 1900; Hurricane Katrina, 
one of the 10 worst, killing 1,836 in 2005; 1980, a heat wave in the 
southern and central States killing 1,700; Chicago heat wave in 1995.
  Disasters that need the relief that the American people deserve.
  This tells us what we will be facing while a filibuster is going on 
in the Senate. This is a map only of this year. Already disasters in 
Washington State with mud slides, Oklahoma with tornados, Arizona with 
wildfires, Miami with mud slides.
  Then they want to block Homeland Security from developing regulations 
for infrastructure, they want to stop what is going on with Hurricane 
Sandy and the repair that is needed and the infrastructure with 
something called the REINS Act, which, as I said earlier, goes around 
and around and around.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to point out to the House that the assertion that this 
does not prevent a filibuster in the Senate is incorrect. If Members 
would examine pages 12 through 14 of the bill, they will see multiple 
ways in which procedural motions and substantive motions in the Senate 
are barred from undertaking a filibuster, and they must proceed through 
those points of order and other objections that might be raised to a 
final vote on this regulation under the REINS Act.
  This is a good thing because it will allow for expeditious 
consideration by the Congress of regulations. Whether they are needed 
or not needed, they ought to be considered by the Congress, especially 
if they cost more than $100 million to the American economy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman pointed us out 
to pages 12 to 14, because he indicated a number of procedural hula 
hoops that we have to jump through. Each of those procedural hula hoops 
will be subject to a filibuster.
  But this is what the American people go through: Here is a tornado or 
an earthquake, here is Hurricane Sandy. There are a variety of issues 
that it results in. Here is a wildfire.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this amendment. There 
are a whole lot of opportunities for the people of west Tennessee to 
benefit from it.
  We are an area that has been known to have tornados; we have the 
potential for an earthquake from Reelfoot Lake. FEMA comes under this, 
and to stop FEMA from having proper regulations that could protect the 
public would be a serious mistake. It is important that we safeguard 
our citizens, particularly when they are victims of natural tragedies.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman.
  I would like to ask my colleagues to be sensible and realize that you 
cannot control the other body.
  This amendment is a sensible amendment that responds to the outcry of 
wildfires, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes. The American people are 
looking for the Department of Homeland Security to be able to focus on 
the infrastructure repair, the regulatory scheme and structure to 
respond to an emergency.
  This bill does not deal with emergencies. It deals with an elongated 
process that, unfortunately, will drown, if you will, the people with a 
regulatory structure that does not provide them with the relief that 
first responders need or the people need.
  I ask my colleagues of this House to be sensible and vote for the 
Jackson Lee amendment.
  My amendment would exempt from the bill's Congressional approval 
requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland 
Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking 
Member of the Border and Maritime 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

[[Page H5328]]

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 USCERT 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.
  The Department of Homeland Security is also tasked with combating 
terrorism, and protecting Americans from threats. With the current 
unrest in the Middle East, why would we want to limit DHS's ability to 
do its job?

  The Department of Homeland Security is constantly responding to new 
intelligence and threats from the volatile Middle East and around the 
globe. We must not tie the hands of those trusted to protect us from 
these threats.
  Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations 
puts the entire country at risk. 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 2011, 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.
  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 life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of 
Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and would just say in opposition to this amendment again, Members only 
need to look to the bill itself to see that the process in the Senate 
will not tolerate filibusters at any point in the process from start to 
finish.
  Let me also point out that the American people care very much about 
how disasters are handled, and so do elected representatives of the 
American people. But we are talking about regulations written by the 
agency that cost more than $100 million.
  Those regulations, if they are written wrong--and many people would 
suggest that the Department of Homeland Security has gotten it wrong 
many times with regulations from the TSA, for example--those 
regulations should come back to this Congress for review. The American 
people have the first and foremost place to look for leadership on 
these issues in the Congress of the United States, the people's House, 
and the United States Senate, and not to government regulatory 
agencies.
  Yes, they need to write regulations, but they shouldn't have the 
final say, particularly on the most expensive regulations affecting our 
economy.
  Money that is diverted--money that is diverted--to pay for 
unnecessary regulations is money that can't be spent to address other 
problems that we have in this country or to pay down our national debt. 
That's what is important, and that's why this amendment should be 
defeated.
  We need to have common sense brought to our regulatory process. The 
REINS Act does it. The REINS Act reins in unnecessary burdensome 
regulations, it helps protect American jobs, and it ought to be 
protected, and that includes protected from unnecessary or burdensome 
regulations in the Department of Homeland Security.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. McKinley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 20, line 16, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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, this bill currently requires that all 
regulations that cost $100 million or more must first be approved by 
Congress.

                              {time}  2030

  Therefore, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce that 
threshold from $100 million to $50 million. This would ensure greater 
transparency and more accountability in the process. Let's put this in 
perspective, Mr. Chairman.
  For the past 2 years, according to the regulators, of all of the 
regulations individually that have exceeded $100 million, only 2 
percent have been reviewed. That means 98 percent of all of the 
regulations that we have faced in America have not had the involvement 
of Congress. I mean, who would be satisfied if only 2 percent of our 
food that we eat has been inspected? Who would be satisfied if only 2 
percent of the planes that we fly in are inspected--or of our homes? 
businesses? The Obama administration and its overly aggressive 
bureaucrats are playing with people's lives.
  Last weekend, I was at a Serbian picnic in northern West Virginia, 
and I was approached by two adult males who were very concerned. Mr. 
Chairman, their eyes welled up with fear and concern because of all of 
these regulations that are being imposed on them.

[[Page H5329]]

They fear whether they're going to have jobs because of all of these 
regulations which no one is overseeing. These men love to work and they 
want to work, but they feel these new regulations threaten their 
American Dream and are taking away the possibility for them to raise 
their families. Each of us knows men like them. They live in our 
neighborhoods. Whenever we go home, we see these people. They want to 
work, but they're afraid of someone moving the goalpost with a new 
regulation that's not checked by Congress.
  Every year, these regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars 
annually, and 98 percent of them are implemented without congressional 
oversight. According to the Small Business Administration, the 
cumulative burden of regulations exceeds more than $1 trillion annually 
out of our economy. Let me say this again: nearly 98 percent of all new 
regulations have no economic analysis or oversight by the American 
public. According to the GAO, Federal regulators last year, Mr. 
Chairman, issued 2,500 new regulations--just in 1 year alone.
  Doesn't this administration understand that excessive, unchecked 
regulations harm working families?
  Just because the administration can issue a regulation doesn't mean 
that it should. By reducing the threshold from $100 million to $50 
million, we provide Congress an opportunity to rein in these out-of-
control agencies and allow more of our people to continue working and 
supporting their families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I share in my colleague's 
desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to regulations with high 
economic impacts, and I know that recent major regulations have hit 
West Virginia and the gentleman's constituents particularly hard.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's regulations that affect energy 
sources and power production are among the most troubling. The $100 
million threshold for major regulations in the bill is consistent with 
definitions that have been used by Presidential administrations of both 
parties since at least the 1990s. However, regulations with a $50 
million impact in today's economy will hit America's job creators and 
families too hard. This is particularly true of small businesses and 
the families that depend on them on Main Streets throughout the Nation. 
As a result, the amendment would make sure that Congress is accountable 
for regulatory decisions of this magnitude, which impose harm on an 
economy that can ill afford it.
  Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in doing so.
  Mr. COHEN. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is twice as bad as the bill 
because it decreases by $50 million the threshold, which means more and 
more regulations would have to go through this cumbersome process and 
really stifle regulations and rules, and that's what this is about.
  The Speaker said that the job of this Congress is not to pass 
legislation but to repeal legislation. That's what these bills are 
about. They're not to improve the lives of Americans by having more 
safety and more protection but, rather, to defeat proposals that may 
come from the EPA, which are to protect the air and the water and our 
Earth, as well as to protect other areas of safety, whether it's 
automobiles or airplanes or trains or trucks or whatever.
  The fact is that this would make it almost impossible to pass a rule 
or a regulation, and it would allow one House the ability to kill a 
regulation. This is a House that doesn't have the expertise within it, 
which has been said by some of the Members in their saying they didn't 
know how big to build a dam or whatever. That's why we have government 
people who study and do research and promulgate rules and regulations--
to protect us--and it's done in a nonpolitical environment. If you 
bring it to this environment, you're going to have lobbyists coming up, 
trying to kill things that affect their industries.
  This is a yo-yo bill: you are on your own. That's what they're saying 
basically, that we don't want protections for consumers or protections 
for citizens. We want to have something laissez-faire: no rules and 
regulations. You're out there on your own.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Houston, 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with my good friend who has offered 
this amendment, which is even more extreme.
  I proceeded to read the sections that my good chairman referred me to 
on how expeditious this process would be in the United States Senate. 
It's unworkable. How does anyone think that the Senate is going to pass 
this bill? They've never passed it because what it says is that you're 
going to kick the resolution out of committee, that you're going to 
discharge it, and then you're going to move it beyond all of their 
rules. You're literally abolishing the Senate's rules that they have 
not redone themselves. They never got an agreement on ending a 
filibuster, so I have no idea as to issues of security and safety as it 
relates to homeland security or of the issues dealing with fuel and 
greenhouse gases, which have decidedly impacted positively the American 
people as it relates to emissions.

  Now we're going from $100 million to $50 million, which, I hate to 
say, in a country of this size means that we are going to multiply the 
number of resolutions on this body that has really been slow in the 
passing of any legislation. Then we are going to move to the Senate, 
and we are going to tell the Senate committees, If you don't act in 15 
days, we're discharging this. Then we will expect the Senate to pass 
this bill, which is the only way that it's going to get to the 
President's desk.
  I might also say to my good friend from Tennessee, over and over 
again, we keep talking about what President Obama's administration has 
done. If this is about President Obama, that's one thing. If this is 
about creating jobs, the President has offered the American Jobs Act, 
and we have introduced a bill that has been calculated to have helped 
create jobs and stop the bleeding of the economy.
  I am glad my good friend talked about the success of the Dow. That 
translates into jobs if we get rid of the sequester. There is a bill 
that will get rid of it, H.R. 900, offered by Mr. Conyers, which many 
of us have cosponsored. Where is the debate on the floor of the House 
of that?
  I would simply say that we are now going from the extreme to the very 
extreme, and you're going to see a pounding of regulations. Moms and 
dads and children--families--municipalities, places need clean air, 
clean water. They need better emissions to the extent that it helps 
with clean air. They need safety. They need security. Now we are going 
to pile it up with those that may cost $50 million.
  How absurd is that in terms of the legislative schedule of this place 
and the legislative schedule of the United States Senate? Now, I'm not 
saying anyone is going to shuck off any work--we welcome that--but you 
have the regular order of legislation. Then every time an amendment 
comes up--now $50 million--then you're going to say that this must kick 
in.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment because it simply will 
not work.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Webster of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, beginning on line 4, strike ``except that such 
     term does not include--'' and all that follows through line 
     18, and insert the

[[Page H5330]]

     following: ``except that such term does not include 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.''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Webster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, this amendment is straightforward. 
It closes a regulatory loophole that allows Federal agencies to make 
major policy changes without appropriate congressional review.
  As currently written, the REINS Act covers agency rules developed 
through the formal notice and comment rule-making process, but that's 
not enough. By removing two exceptions from the definition of ``rule,'' 
we ensure that agency actions that serve a regulatory purpose are 
subject to the $100 million threshold.
  The current administration circumvents congressional oversight and 
public input by issuing general statements of policy known as 
``guidance documents'' in order to achieve its intrusive regulatory 
agenda. This tactic shields major and costly policy changes from any 
congressional oversight laws put in place to protect citizens. Let me 
give you two examples.
  The EPA used a guidance document to remove the word ``navigable'' 
from the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' This would 
expand its jurisdiction to potentially regulate traditional State 
waters and roadside ditches that hold water after rainfall. The EPA 
estimates that this guidance document could cost Americans $171 million 
annually. Last month, we all know the administration used a guidance 
document to delay the health care law's employer coverage mandate. The 
CBO estimates this guidance document will cost $12 billion.
  Both of these guidance documents make substantive changes to policy 
without congressional review. Under the REINS Act as currently drafted, 
these costly guidance documents would escape the disapproval process 
even though they breach the $100 million threshold established by 
REINS.
  Good policy does not have to be hidden within the cloak of 
bureaucratic power grabbing. My amendment seeks to shine light into the 
dark corner of regulatory infrastructure that is abused by those with 
an agenda that must be hidden from view. It simply allows elected 
Representatives the opportunity to review policy changes issued through 
internal guidance that exceed the $100 million threshold. Hardworking 
taxpayers are owed a choice and a voice through their elected 
Representatives in all major policy changes that impact their jobs and 
their pocketbooks. This amendment secures this fundamental measure of 
government, accountability, and respect for taxpayers.
  By requiring a vote of Congress in all substantive agency rules, the 
REINS Act results in more clearly written legislation; it improves the 
regulatory process; and it holds government accountable to the American 
people for the laws imposed upon them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Webster amendment and strengthen 
the REINS Act by closing this guidance document loophole, which erodes 
the rule of law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. COHEN. In what I'm sure is no surprise to the Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Once again, this just takes it to another level. It's not 
just the rules, but then the rules of the rules.
  Really what this bill is about is a messaging opportunity. We're 
supposed to be legislating. The reality is that we don't legislate in 
Congress; we message. One side says, We're for business. We're against 
regulations. We're against rules. We want to create enterprise by 
destroying rules and regulations. The other side, which is my side, 
says, We're for consumers. We're for safety. We're for protection. 
We're for health and clean water and clear air. We think that the 
government process works because it saves people; it saves their lives. 
We go back and forth.
  This would effectively destroy the opportunity to have rules and 
regulations passed at all. It's not going to get through the Senate, so 
what it is is a messaging opportunity for us to fill up C-SPAN. It's 
unfortunate because we should be legislating about jobs and about the 
sequester. We ought to be talking about benefits that the government 
does provide, but right now sequestration is taking away important jobs 
in the Defense Department, moneys from the National Institutes of 
Health, which would protect people's lives in the long run with 
treatments and cures that we need, and the next generation will benefit 
greater than us; yet we're here talking about something that is not 
going to happen.
  It is really unfortunate, because we should be legislating, and this 
bill just gets us into the weeds, gets us down into the regulations. 
It's like we're going to strangle the ``bureaucrats.'' But the 
bureaucrats are the experts who come up with the safety provisions that 
say your children's toys are going to be safe and your car is going to 
have brakes and work in the proper manner and your airplane is not 
going to fall out of the sky when it's not near the airport.
  Those are important things to the American people, and if you don't 
have rules and regulations by experts that can be implemented, we're 
going to have a lot of accidents. That's why this is a very bad bill 
and a bad amendment and a bad use of the public's time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and 
I'm going to support his amendment.
  I share my colleagues's desire to curb the abuse of agency guidance 
documents and other agency directives, statements, and actions that too 
often have escaped adequate congressional scrutiny.
  The amendment brings within the scope of the Congressional Review Act 
and the REINS Act rules of agency practice, procedure, and management 
that could be abused but otherwise would escape a congressional check 
and balance. It is a measured first step in reining in agency excess, 
and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future to see 
if we can identify additional ways to rein in abusive agency practices 
and guidance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time so we 
can get to the next program on C-SPAN quicker.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just want to remind everyone that we all remember what happened on 
July 3 when there was an announcement made that all of the sudden we 
were going to basically reverse our decision on the Affordable Care Act 
passed by this Congress. I would not have voted for it had I been here. 
With one stroke of the pen on a guidance document, they were able to 
thwart the law that we passed.
  We talk about this body is for legislating? Yes, it is. When it does, 
we expect the executive branch to enforce that law, which it didn't; 
and it didn't because it was able to use that guidance document to 
change the law. It's not right. Vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 113-187.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, 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 23, line 19, insert after ``determines.'' the 
     following (and amend the table of sections accordingly):

     ``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 
     2013 shall

[[Page H5331]]

     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 2013, shall continue to apply, after such 
     enactment, to any such rule, as appropriate.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 322, 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 rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
367, the REINS Act, and I yield myself 3 minutes of my time.
  Today's REINS Act would require a joint resolution approval of 
Congress every time the executive branch promulgates a major rule. My 
amendment would simply exempt our Nation's veterans from the burdensome 
layers and hurdles that H.R. 367 will add to the administration's 
rulemaking process.
  I oppose the underlying bill because it will severely restrict agency 
or department action when many vulnerable veterans need help. It is 
just simply unacceptable every single time our Nation's veterans are 
held hostage by the gridlock we experience in Congress. This is yet 
another moment. This amendment offers an opportunity to exempt them 
from that.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few little facts:
  Today's veterans need help more than ever, and they really deserve 
it. Unfortunately, over 3,000 Active Duty troops have taken their lives 
since 2011. We have an estimated 22 veteran suicides per day. We've had 
over 2 million Active Duty soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, 
many of whom are struggling to transition and trying to find 
employment. While the VA has made some progress in recent months, Mr. 
Chairman, the backlog of over 500,000 claims--those older than 125 
days--is simply unacceptable.
  Some veterans have had to wait up to 2 years for an administrative 
decision on a claim, and we're adding more administrative requirements 
for them. We're gravely concerned, all of us are here, on a bipartisan 
basis, about the growing backlog of appeals pending with the VA as 
resources are shifted. The amount of claims waiting to be heard by the 
Board of Veterans Affairs is currently over 45,000 and estimated to 
increase to approximately 102,000 by 2017. The average length of an 
appeal completed in fiscal year 2012 was 903 days, Mr. Chairman. Adding 
hurdles now will do nothing but curtail options available to the 
administration as it works toward solving these serious problems.
  I appeal to the common sense and compassion for veterans of my 
colleagues. My amendment is simple. Veterans deserve to be left out of 
this political fight.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the statistics about the delays in poor 
performance at the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to 
veterans' claims are reasons to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. The 
amendment carves out of the REINS act congressional approval procedures 
all regulations that affect veterans and Veterans Affairs.
  We want to guarantee that the regulatory decisions that affect them 
are the best decisions. That's why major regulations that affect 
veterans and Veterans Affairs, like all other major regulations, should 
fall within the REINS Act. Under the legislation, agencies with 
authority over veterans' issues will know that Congress must approve 
their major regulations before they go into effect.
  That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best 
possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. Congress 
will have every incentive to approve good regulations and every 
incentive to disapprove regulations that have led to the kind of delays 
and uncertainty that veterans face today.
  That's a solution that everyone should be able to support. Congress 
will be more accountable, agencies will write better rules, and 
veterans and all Americans will reap the benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm sure my colleague agrees with me that we should not add hurdles. 
We've passed 11 bills since September on behalf of veterans, including 
the following kinds of initiatives: the 9/11 GI Bill, which we all 
agreed upon; copayments for medication; and resources for radiation 
poisoning. Had we had this bill in place, each and every one of these 
initiatives would have required a joint resolution from Congress each 
time the VA promulgated these rules.
  If those sessions of Congress were anything like the majority's 
calendar for this year, we would not have had a lot of time to have 
completed work. This year we've only passed 15 bills into law. That's a 
record low compared to last year. As the Speaker just recently said--I 
suppose it would apply here--we should not be judged on how many laws 
we create; we should be judged on how many laws we repeal. Certainly, 
we would not have been able to do things like the GI Bill or reduce 
copayments for medications for veterans had we had this bill in place.
  The other thing is you would think that my colleagues would have some 
pride in this institution. All this bill will do is put much more power 
within the hands of the executive. We can't appoint bureaucrats to 
conference committees on the budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
         Disabled American Veterans National Service & Legislative 
           Headquarters,
                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2013.
     Hon. Gwen Moore,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Moore: On behalf of DAV (Disabled 
     American Veterans), an organization of 1.2 million wartime 
     wounded, injured, and ill veterans, I am writing with respect 
     to your proposed amendment to H.R. 367, the Regulations from 
     the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, or the 
     ``REIN'' Act.
       Your proposed amendment, if accepted, would exempt veterans 
     and veterans affairs from the requirements of the bill that 
     all proposed federal rules that convey a cost of $100 million 
     or more, or that are subject to other circumstances described 
     in the bill, be submitted to Congress before promulgation by 
     the Executive Branch. Under the bill, Congress would require 
     itself to mandatorily act to approve or disapprove any such 
     regulation through fixed rules of procedure and calendars.
       Your effort to protect veterans to ensure their benefits 
     and services are provided in an expeditious manner, as 
     proposed by an Executive Branch agency, is deeply 
     appreciated. Under the DAV Constitution and By-Laws, any 
     federal legislation or policy that furthers the interests of 
     wounded and injured veterans carries DAV's strong support.
       While endorsing your specific amendment, DAV takes no 
     position on the underlying bill itself, because our 
     membership has not approved a resolution specific to the 
     purpose of Congress generally limiting government regulation-
     making across the vast federal landscape.
       Thank you for proposing your amendment, and please advise 
     me how DAV can aid you in gaining its acceptance by the House 
     as it concludes consideration of the REIN Act.
           Sincerely,
                                               Barry A. Jesinoski,
                      Executive Director, Washington Headquarters.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I say to the gentlewoman, my colleague from Wisconsin, that this 
House is very proud of the fact that we worked in a bipartisan fashion 
to pass all of those bills. I have absolutely no doubt that if, after 
we pass those bills, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other 
agencies affecting veterans didn't do the work properly and didn't get 
it done right that this Congress would again work in a very bipartisan 
fashion to say, No, you didn't get it right. Get it right.
  That's what this is all about. That's why the REINS Act is important. 
It's not just for every other American, but also for veterans. This is 
something that will improve the regulatory process.
  There is another study that talks about the creation of jobs, which 
are important to our veterans who have returned and are looking for 
employment in this country. This is a study by the Phoenix Center, and 
it's entitled, ``Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An 
Empirical Study.'' It was performed by three Ph.D.'s and a lawyer. What 
could be better than that? I want to read from part of the abstract. It 
says:


[[Page H5332]]


       Even a small 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget, 
     about $2.8 billion, is estimated to result in about $75 
     billion in expanded private sector GDP each year with an 
     increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On 
     average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the 
     American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private 
     sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million-dollar 
     increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 
     private sector jobs.

  This is a study that shows conclusively that we're right when we say 
that the REINS Act will help to create jobs in this country and the 
current regulatory morass that we're facing in this country is costing 
American jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to 
support the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cramer) having assumed the chair, Mr. Conaway, 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. 367) to 
amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major 
rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a 
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________