Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentleman.

I think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what is being asked of this body. I believe it is a nullification of the Constitution, which I like to carry, and the very distinct definition of the three branches of government and their responsibilities.

Frankly, our friends are trying to equate this Congress and its do- nothing record to the work of the executives, and now to create a do- nothing pathway for the rulemaking process which, as I've indicated on many of the bills that have already passed, there is a Federal court process for anyone that wants to challenge the process of rulemaking or whether or not due process has been denied. So I'd actually say that what we have here is a complete shutdown of the Federal Government, for it is asking this Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval for any major rule to be passed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to you what would happen: Warnings on cigarette packages would no longer exist; Medicare payments for those lying in psychiatric hospitals would not be able to be paid; and the emissions standards for boiler pollutants, hazardous pollutants out of industrial, commercial, and institutional emissions would go flat; and we would have a nation that small businesses, I believe, would argue would also be a distraction from the work that they do.

It is interesting that my friends would want to use the backs of small businesses to pretend that they are protecting them. First of all, if they look at their facts, they will note the Obama administration has passed less rules than the Bush administration.

As I indicated, they will also note that the 111th Congress passed more constructive bills to help small businesses than this Congress could ever do, and the fact that they would note that it has been recorded that this Congress is the largest do-nothing Congress that has ever existed. It would be helpful if we could pass the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, allow them to infuse dollars, 1,000 or $1,500, into the small businesses of America.

I will tell you that my small businesses will celebrate that. In visiting a medical clinic owned by a doctor that had thousands of feet that he wanted to rehab and expand, he said that payroll tax that was part of the jobs bill that the President wanted to pass through this do-nothing House of Representatives would have helped him greatly.

Then we have millions of Americans, 6 million, who are trying to get unemployment insurance. Here we are down to the last wire telling those in this blessed holiday season, whatever your faith, that you have to wait at the door and, in fact, there may not be any room at the inn for 6 million who don't have their unemployment insurance.

I don't want to shut down the government.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I don't want to shut down the government. I want a government that works. Rulemaking is not the demon here; and the process of rulemaking, if you read it, provides the input and assessment of those who are concerned.

What this does is involve the President, the Congress, in a scheme that is so dilatory that we will never do any work in this Congress. I beg of you to defeat this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to debate H.R. 10 Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.

In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as a member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.

If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule, it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields. Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to effect the change that Americans want. For example extending unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet, here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our economy.

There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing (on H.R. 3010 a bill based on the same false premise) clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''

If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans back to work. For instance, the BlueGreen Alliance notes: ``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''

Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure ``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #6, to H.R. 10, ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny'' (REINS). This bill amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs. Under current law Congress can provide oversight and disapprove of a promulgated bill.

My amendment would exempt all rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how protect our nation. Continuing to make advance in Homeland security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face.

The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the protection of our cyber security.

In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States.

We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, manageable, and cause the least possible damage.

Like other national security challenges in the post 9/11 era, the cyber threat is multifaceted and without boundaries. Some cyber attackers are foreign nations that utilize their military or intelligence-gathering operations, whereas others are either operating alone or are connected to terrorist groups. In addition, there are cyber threats that are international or domestic criminal enterprises.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to US-CERT has increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 2009 (over a 400 percent increase).

The four most prevalent types of cyber incidents and events reported to US-CERT during FY 2009 were malicious code; improper usage; unauthorized access and incidents warranting further investigations (unconfirmed malicious or anomalous activity).

Critical infrastructure in the Nation is composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.

With cyberspace as their central nervous system--it is the control system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential to both our economy and our national security.

In light of an attack that threatens the United State's cyber protection, Homeland Security officials may need to issue emergency regulations quickly. Attacks can be sent instantly in cyber space, and the protection of our critical infrastructure cannot be mitigated by cumbersome bureaucracy.

As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our Nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

Take for example U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which identifies prosecutorial discretion as ``the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual.'' When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it ``essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.''

In the civil immigration enforcement context, prosecutorial discretion may take the form of a broad range of discretionary enforcement decisions, including: focusing enforcement resources on particular administrative violations or conduct; deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest for an administrative violation; deciding whether a suspect will be detained or released on bond; and granting deferred action, granting parole, staying a final order of removal, or other alternative to obtaining a formal order of removal.

Let me be clear; prosecutorial discretion is not amnesty; it is done on a case by case basis to ensure that the limited resources ICE has to work with are put toward removing those who pose a threat to the safety and security of the American people. Allowing ICE to

identify and focus on priorities strengthens immigration enforcement by targeting the right individuals.

Furthermore, ICE Director John Morton issued a memorandum in March of 2011 that outlined the enforcement policies for the agency. Among the priority enforcement cases were aliens posing a risk to national security or public safety, recent illegal entrants, and those who are fugitives or have a history of violating U.S. immigration law.

Director Morton's memorandum indicates that prosecutorial discretion is by no means widespread, blanket amnesty for undocumented aliens; it is a law enforcement method used by many agencies, including ICE, under Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, prosecutorial discretion allows ICE to allocate its resources to ensure their enforcement efforts provide for the safety and security of the nation. Why would this rule need additional scrutiny?

And another major impact rule deals with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule the final rule will provide DHS with an average of $209 million in FY2010 and FY2011 annual fee revenue, based on a projected annual fee-paying volume of 4.4 million immigration benefit requests and 1.9 million requests for biometric services, over the fee revenue that would be collected under the current fee structure. The increased revenue will be used to fund the full cost of processing immigration benefit applications and associated support benefits; the full cost of providing similar benefits to asylum and refugee applicants; and the full cost of similar benefits provided to others at no change. These are the sorts of rules that are going to be needlessly hindered by this Legislation.

Again, instead of focusing on jobs we are focusing on regulations that Congress already has the power to review and prevent its implementation if and when necessary.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

On any given day the city of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to ensure that regulations that save lives that are promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

I am pleased to join my dear friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, in offering this amendment as the Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment.

I hold a sign that, I think, speaks to the gist of this amendment, ``Make It In America.'' A number of us have been on the floor of the House on a regular basis talking about creating jobs and about making it in America. My good friend from Texas just passed an amendment without opposition, and I see no reason why the Jackson Lee-Johnson or Johnson-Jackson Lee amendment cannot be accepted in the very same way.

Bruce Bartlett, one of the senior policy analysts in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, observed that regulatory uncertainty is a canard, an invented canard, that allows those who use it to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of opportunism because regulations don't stop you from creating jobs. In actuality, they provide cleaner air; they provide clean food; they provide the opportunity of a roadmap so that small and large businesses can do their work.

The Clean Air Act is a shining example. A lot of regulations came out of the Clean Air Act. Given that the economy since the Clean Air Act was passed

in 1970 under Richard Milhous Nixon, a Republican, it shows that the economy has grown 204 percent and that private sector job creation has expanded 86 percent.

I would ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the Johnson- Jackson Lee amendment. Let's make it in America. Let's ensure there is a regulatory process that exempts any regulation that creates jobs. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment #2, that I offered along with my esteemed colleague Mr. Johnson, to H.R. 10 Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). Our amendment would exempt the Office of Management and Budget once it is determined that the rules they offer will result in net job creation.

REINS would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and require Congressional approval of all major rules (rules with an economic impact that is greater than $100 million). If Congress fails to act within 70 days the rule cannot be implemented. This change is targeted directly at executive agencies and does nothing to create jobs.

In other words, this bill is calling for Congressional oversight of Executive branch activities and functions. I have been serving as member of this governing body since 1995, and oversight of the Executive branch is exactly what Congress does. One of the main functions of the Congressional Committees is oversight.

If Congress were required to proactively approve every federal rule, it would be extremely time consuming. The Federal agencies of the Executive branch are made up of experts in their respective fields. Many of the regulations that Federal agencies enact are very specific and require a high level of familiarity with the minute details of certain issues. The time it would take members of Congress to become adequately acquainted with each issue being proposed by each Federal agency would certainly be more productive if channeled into efforts to effect the change that Americans want. For example extending unemployment insurance, job creation, and encouraging job growth. Yet, here we are again wasting time on a measure that will not help our economy.

As we consider REINS, it is important that we not forget that federal agencies have their own oversight process in place to ensure that proposed regulations are thoroughly vetted.

For every proposed regulation, agencies are required to issue notice of proposed rulemakings to the industry and market over which they regulate. Those entities then comment on the rules, and they go through many rounds of changes before a final order is enacted.

Furthermore, rules enacted by Federal agencies are subject to Congressional oversight and review, and must meet standards of judicial review. Arguably, rules and regulations issued by Federal agencies go through just as much, if not more, review as bills considered and passed by Congress.

Implementing this rule would put a tremendous burden on Congress, and to be frank, as members elected by our constituencies to represent their interests, our time could be utilized in a much more effective manner.

Instead of debating about oversight authority that Congress already has, we should be focusing on the issues that most concern the American people, particularly, creating jobs. As our country rebounds from one of the most severe economic downturns in our history, it is imperative that we make decisions that will enable our economy to grow and, most importantly, create jobs. We should be using our judgment in a manner that would create American jobs by comprehensively reforming our broken immigration system. We should be working to implement an orderly process for immigration that eases the burden on employers, improves documentation, and complements our enforcement efforts to make them more effective.

Healthy market competition not only protects consumers, but will help our economy to prosper. Congress should be examining the consolidation taking place in certain industries to ensure healthy competition is alive and thriving.

America is a free enterprise society, and small businesses are part of the backbone of our economy, employing a vast portion of Americans. We should be ensuring that any consolidation taking place in the marketplace does not push out small businesses and render them unable to compete.

In the last couple of years, some sweeping mergers and acquisitions have taken place. Just recently, it was reported that 500 jobs are being cut as a result of last year's United-Continental merger. As we face a high unemployment rate, and Americans struggle to make ends meet, every job counts. We should be investigating the outcomes of mergers such as United-Continental, amongst others, to ensure that no more precious jobs are being lost.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up here and emphasized the importance of jobs for American workers-- especially in the context of immigration debates. However, one of the largest contributors to the lack of employment opportunities here in American is the outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor is less expensive. We should be focusing our efforts on ways to return outsourced jobs to American soil.

Bottom line, Congress has a large responsibility. We carry on our shoulders the needs of the American people. Our time here is valuable and our work load is great. We should not further burden this body with the work that an entire branch of government has already been commissioned to do, especially since Congress still has oversight authority.

For each one of us, the needs of the constituents in our districts should be our priority. The needs of the American people as a whole should be our priority.

There is no credible evidence that regulations depress job creation. The Majority's own witness at the legislative hearing clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the ``focus on jobs . . . can lead to confusion in regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''

If anything, regulations may promote job growth and put Americans back to work. For instance, According to the BlueGreen Alliance, notes: ``Studies on the direct impact of regulations on job growth have found that most regulations result in modest job growth or have no effect, and economic growth has consistently surged forward in concert with these health and safety protections. The Clean Air Act is a shining example, given that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 86% since its passage in 1970.''

Regulation and economic growth can go hand in hand. Regarding the Clean Air Act, the White House Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') recently observed that 40 years of success with this measure ``have demonstrated that strong environmental protections and strong economic growth go hand in hand.'' Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Auto Workers cite the fact that increased fuel economy standards have already led to the creation of more than 155,000 U.S. jobs.

The claim that regulatory uncertainty hurts business has been debunked as political opportunism. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations observed ``[R]egulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

Regulatory uncertainty does not deter business investment. A lack of demand, not uncertainty about regulation, is cited as the reason for not hiring.

At a legislative hearing on regulatory reform (H.R. 3010), Professor Sidney Shapiro similarly noted, ``All of the available evidence contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business investment.''

A July 2011 Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found that the ``main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies.''

The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of its members likewise shows that ``poor sales''--not regulation--is the biggest problem. Of those reporting negative sales trends, 45 percent blamed faltering sales, 5 percent higher labor costs, 15 percent higher materials costs, 3 percent insurance costs, 8 percent lower selling prices and 10 percent higher taxes and regulatory costs.''

Small businesses reject the argument that deregulation is what they need. The Main Street Alliance, an alliance of small businesses, observes: ``In survey after survey and interview after interview, Main Street small business owners confirm that what we really need is more customers--more demand--not deregulation. Policies that restore our customer base are what we need now, not policies that shift more risk and more costs onto us from big corporate actors . . .

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create jobs and get our country on a path to a strong economic future, what small businesses need is customers--Americans with spending money in their pockets--not watered down standards that give big corporations free reign to cut corners, use their market power at our expense, and force small businesses to lay people off and close up shop.''

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What America wants and what I believe is important to the institution that we have such great respect for is for Members to work together. There are a number of amendments that were allowed by the Rules Committee, and I thank them; and the idea should be that these amendments improve a bill.

It is obvious that I disagree with this bill because I think it will literally shut down government. If you cannot pass simple bills that have been passed out of the House of Representatives to the other body and they have not yet passed, we've finished one year of the 112th Congress, how do you think we can manage what is called major rulemaking? Eighty different rules would have to be approved by the President, the House, and the Senate. Literally, the American people would be held hostage.

So this amendment is a cooperative amendment. I think it makes the bill better. The reason why, we have our soldiers, most likely on the front lines of Afghanistan. On account of a heinous act of terrorism on 9/11, our soldiers were dispatched to defend this Nation in Afghanistan. In doing so, they had as their backup the Department of Homeland Security, a Department whose responsibility is to secure

the homeland. Simply ask the 9/11 families how serious it is to secure the homeland.

My amendment would simply say that Homeland Security regulations or regulations dealing with securing the homeland, making America safe, would be exempt from this dilatory, long-winded process of approval. We need urgency when we speak of securing the homeland.

For example, it is well known that we deal not only with a terrorism potential from around the world, but it is also possible to have a catastrophic event that deals with a domestic terrorist attack.

I cannot believe that my colleagues would not want to act in a bipartisan manner and, in particular, with the REINS Act that requires a voted-on resolution of approval, otherwise the security amendment does not go into place. I cannot believe that we would not in a bipartisan way accept the Jackson Lee amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I think he plays right into the reason why he should join me and make this a bipartisan amendment.

Frankly, I don't think we would want to throw out or delay any process of rulemaking dealing with securing the homeland. I think when the gentleman was citing licenses, he was speaking 9/11. It is now 11 years, and we have passed a number of rulemakings that have improved securing the homeland. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I'm quite aware of the progress we've made, such as not having to address that kind of, if you will, mishap--more than a mishap--but that kind of lack of communication that we had on 9/11.

The point I want to make is our soldiers are on the front line in Afghanistan. They are asking, as someone would say on the playing field, Have you got my back? The Department of Homeland Security is that Department created from the Select Committee on Homeland Security which I was on, now in the Homeland Security Committee, to in fact provide for the security of the Nation. With that in mind, I think it is untenable to think of thwarting that process.

What we have here in the REINS Act is truly the REINS Act. It is a stranglehold on moving the Nation forward on good regulations, clean air, clean water, but in this instance securing the homeland. I believe that having the President, the Senate, and the House come together in a reasonable period of time to approve a rule dealing with securing the homeland while soldiers are on the front line defending us is an atrocious position to put the securing of the Nation in.

Let me just say this, Bruce Bartlett is a Republican. He said that the regulatory uncertainty that Republicans talk about is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. That's from a Republican.

The question is let's separate the special interests. The REINS Act is here. They have the majority. More than likely it will pass. But they're going to ignore our war and our fight to secure the homeland.

Here on the front line, what are we doing? We're putting a stranglehold on the rulemaking that will come forward that's attempting to help the American people. If we have to do something for the Transportation Security Administration and the security checkpoints and we need a rule, it's going to be held back because of this process.

I ask for the support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the chairman.

Two years ago, I met with the a constituent who was concerned about the effects of unfunded EPA mandates on his water and sewer bills. He wanted to

know why Congress doesn't vote on new regulations. This simple question inspired the legislation that we're considering today, and it also begs a broader question: Who should be accountable to the American people for major laws with which they are forced to comply?

Since the New Deal, every Congress has delegated more of its constitutional lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies through vaguely written laws. This is an abdication of Congress' constitutional responsibility to write the laws.

This practice of excessive delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch allows Members of Congress to take credit for the benefits of the law it has passed and then blame Federal agencies for the costs and requirements of regulations authorized by the same legislation. Members of Congress are never required to support, oppose, or otherwise contribute to Federal regulations that are major and finalized under their watch.

Even more troubling, this practice has enabled the executive branch to overstep the intent of Congress and legislate through regulation based on broad authorities previously given the agency. In recent years, we've seen examples of administrative agencies, regardless of party, going beyond their original grants of power to implement policies not approved by the people's Congress.

In several cases, such as net neutrality rules and the regulation of carbon emissions, agencies are pursuing regulatory action after Congress has explicitly rejected the concept. In fact, administrative officials publicly proclaimed the strategy after the results of the 2010 elections, going around Congress by forcing their agenda through regulation.

In February of last year, The New York Times quoted White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer as saying, ``In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the administration's agenda.'' True to their word, the administration continues using regulations as an end around Congress.

The lack of congressional accountability for the regulatory process has allowed the regulatory state to grow almost unchecked for generations. Federal administrative agencies issued 3,271 new rules in 2010, or roughly nine regulations per day.

These regulations have a profound impact on our economy. The Small Business Administration estimated that regulations cost the American economy $1.75 trillion in 2008, and that's nearly twice the amount of individual income taxes paid in this country that year. Small businesses spend an estimated $10,500 per employee to comply with Federal rules, a considerable burden on the private sector's ability to create jobs at a time of continued economic struggles.

Today, we can choose to continue on this path, or we can vote to restore our constitutional duty to make law and be held accountable for the details. The REINS Act effectively constrains the delegation of congressional authority by limiting the size and scope of rulemaking permission.

Once major rules are drafted and finalized by an agency, the REINS Act would require Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on any major regulation. Major regulations are those with an annual economic impact of more than $100 million, as determined by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The President would also have to sign the resolution before it could be enforced on the American people, job creators, or State and local governments. Every major regulation would be voted on within 70 legislative days.

The REINS Act was specifically written not to unnecessarily hold up the regulatory process. Rather, the bill prevents REINS resolutions from being filibustered in the Senate.

The point of the REINS Act is simply accountability. Each Congressman must take a stand and be accountable for regulations that cost our citizenry $100 million or more annually. No longer would Congress be able to avoid accountability by writing vague laws requiring the benefits up front and leaving the unpopular or costly elements to the bureaucrats who will write those elements of the law at some later date. Whether or not Congress approves a particular regulation, there will be a clearly accountable vote on the subject that the American people can see and judge for themselves.

This ensures the greatest regulatory burdens on our economy are necessary to promote the public welfare, rather than simply sprouting from the minds of unelected bureaucrats.

The bill's name as a metaphor for the reins on a horse is fitting. The purpose of reins is not to keep a horse at a standstill. Reins are a tool to ensure that the horse knows what is expected of him and is acting according to the intent and will of the rider.

Likewise, the REINS Act would not stop the regulatory process. It would improve the regulatory process by ensuring that new major rules match the intent of Congress and the will of the American people. The REINS Act would foster greater upfront cooperation between agencies and future Congresses, resulting in better written legislation and regulation.

With greater accountability and transparency, regulatory agencies will have no choice but to write regulations that reflect the need for sensible standards and take into account the impact regulations have on American businesses and families.

Similarly, agencies would no longer be able to bypass Congress with regulations that don't match congressional intent or go too far.

Not all regulations are bad. Many provide needed public safeguards, help to keep the American people safe, and maintain a level playing field for businesses to compete. And so good regulations would be approved by future Congresses, and those that could not withstand the public scrutiny of a vote in Congress would not.

A commonsense regulatory system with appropriate checks and balances on the most economically significant rules will help to revive our stagnant economy and give more businesses the ability to hire thanks to a better sense of stability and what to expect from Washington going forward.

The question we're asked today is in effect the same I was asked by my constituent in August of 2009: Who should be accountable for the rules and regulations that have the greatest economic impact on our economy? My answer is the Congress. In an era of high unemployment, Congress can no longer avoid its responsibility to the American people for the regulatory burden. Passing the REINS Act today would be a major step forward in returning to a constitutional, responsible, legislative, and regulatory framework.

I want to thank Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith for his countless efforts on behalf of the REINS Act and his leadership, as well as the more than 200 cosponsors of this bill in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I could not disagree with the gentleman from Georgia more. It's obvious which one of us has run a business and which one is talking about a business.

The reality of the regulatory impact on businesses is huge. All you have to do is ask small business owners in any of our congressional districts if they can get credit because of the newly improved FDIC rules on lending. They will tell you they can't. They can't get credit because of the new regulations, and banks are being consolidated and are going under now. We're finding a rash of environmental regulations throughout the Ohio Valley. Machine tool operators, steel mill operators and other manufacturers say over and over that they will be out of business if the cap-and-trade carbon regulations are imposed by the EPA. These are facts. Health care right now is imposing hiring freezes with the Affordable Care Act.

Once again, there is no reason under any circumstances that we should exempt major regulations that do, indeed, have a real impact on hiring, investment, job creation, and especially on an individual who wants to take the risk to start a business.

Congress should not abdicate its authority any longer regarding these rules. We should step up to the plate and be accountable. If we do so, jobs will be created as a result.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would point out that Gallup has released a survey that shows that one in three small business owners is worried about going out of business; and overwhelmingly, the response to this survey across the United States points to the uncertainty and the unpredictability caused by regulations.

This bill, the REINS Act, is not antiregulation. It is about more transparency and accountability in regulation, and it is about having Congress step up to the plate. It's important that we work together to restore that trust and confidence in the Congress--that we do our jobs, that we stand firm, and that we exercise restraint over the executive branch so that it cannot act in scoring itself on whether jobs are created.

Let that be done by the Congress, which is held accountable. Let us stand for the vote and be accountable to our citizens.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I also oppose the amendment. The amendment leaves it to each agency to determine how we will conduct the cost-benefit analyses of any regulations. This is regrettable. Each agency will be tempted to design rules that it can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs. In past administrations when we've seen this attempt done, there was a divergence of standard; there was no continuity and virtually no reduction in the regulations or understanding of this across the whole of government.

The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December 2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost- benefit analyses. This improves quality, and it prevents deceptive actions by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort. Similarly, under executive order 12866, the President has long required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. The amendment undermines that requirement, too.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water, and clean air.

In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the most cost, do not produce enough benefits, and do not faithfully implement the intent of the people's representatives in the Congress and in the Senate.

A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal and oil-fired power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. That is an 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of hazardous air pollution. Proponents of the regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time.

Think about this from the perspective of the mercury regulation that had the 1,833 to 1 cost-benefit ratio. Who do you think is going to pay for that? The mistake that is made in the arguments saying that it's the rich on Wall Street who benefit are entirely wrong. It's hardworking taxpayers. It's the middle class, the working poor, and the elderly whose utility rates will be driven through the roof as a result of a regulation that was imposed against the intent of the Congress.

When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be able, under the REINS Act, to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board. In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation that Congress will approve.

It will improve the dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will not have to pay for the cost of a misguided major rule made by people who are not accountable to our voters.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I would point out, first of all, that in a national emergency, the President of the United States does have the ability to enact an emergency rule. But what this amendment seeks to do is shield the Department of Homeland Security from Congress's authority to approve regulations under the REINS Act. That shield should be denied.

For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance deadlines for States to issue secure driver's licenses under the REAL ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 when hijackers used fraudulent licenses to board airplanes to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues to extend the deadline.

Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush administration's no-match rule. That regulation helped companies to identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law. When the Obama administration issued its rule to repeal no match, it put the interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.

This is the kind of decisionmaking that takes place at the Department of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can use to reassert its authority over the legislation rulemaking functions it has delegated to DHS. The result will be to streamline communication, to improve communication in crisp and focused pieces of legislation and regulation. The REINS Act is available to do that.

The point of the REINS Act is accountability, and each Congressman must take a stand to be accountable for regulations that cost our citizenry $100 million or more annually.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would like to reiterate that the point of the REINS Act is accountability. It would not impinge, but I believe it would actually improve our ability to manage rulemaking and regulation that relates to security, indeed. The strongest authority in the House of Representatives who could speak on that very issue spoke in favor of this bill earlier, Congressman Chris Gibson from New York, who commanded a brigade in Afghanistan, where that picture was taken, and also a battalion in Iraq in 2005. And I would defer to his authority and military experience on that fact.

The real issue is accountability and restoring transparency and checks and balances to the executive branch so that the American people do not have the reach of government into their back pockets, into their personal lives, into their schools, into their communities, and frankly, in northern Kentucky, even into our sewer pipes, without the consent of the governed.

With that, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I respect my friend from Wisconsin with whom I have worked on numerous pieces of legislation related to child homelessness and affordable housing; but in this case I'm going to respectfully disagree with the premise of the legislation, as a veteran, as a former Army Ranger, as a flight commander of an assault helicopter unit in the 82nd Airborne Division and who served in the Middle East.

The one thing that I would say is that nothing in the REINS Act would in any way inhibit or impede the delivery of services to our veterans, of whom I have been a champion in my time in Congress on numerous pieces of legislation. What I would say is the REINS Act would provide a framework for discussion were there a rule to arise that hit that cost threshold to assure crisp, clear improvement, particularly in dealing with backlogs.

When we deal with the VA specifically, I have had area managers of the Veterans Administration point out specific rules that cause increased queuing and waiting time that were not being addressed. This amendment would actually prevent us from being able to address such things, were they to hit the threshold.

The amendment carves all regulations that affect veterans and veteran affairs out of the REINS Act congressional approval procedures. Frankly, the REINS Act supporters honor America's veterans. We have had America's veterans speaking in favor of this bill throughout the afternoon.

I believe that ultimately we are going to make decisions that will be in keeping with the will of the American people and in the best interests of those veterans as we move forward.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

That's a point that the gentlewoman and I will agree to disagree on. I believe that we have seen the Congress move in an expedited manner in national security in dealing with our veterans, and there would be no difference under this legislation.

Ultimately, we know that Congress must approve all legislation relating to every agency of the Federal Government, and we'll be doing our constitutional duty, as I remind everybody listening, to restore transparency, accountability, and a check-and-balance so that our citizens and our voters can hold somebody in the government accountable instead of faceless bureaucrats.

It's a solution that everyone should support. Congress will be more accountable.

I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is a distraction. It misses the point of this legislation entirely. We are here today to restore accountability for the regulations with the biggest impact on our economy.

Good, bad or ugly--and our regulatory code includes all three-- Congress should be accountable for regulations that cost the American people $100 million or more annually.

The REINS Act simply says that Congress must vote on these regulations, these major rules, before they can be enforced on the American people. Essentially, this motion to recommit repeats part of an exclusion already attempted in the McCarthy amendment that the House just voted down. It's purely a political motion.

The REINS Act has been the subject of two hearings and a markup in the Judiciary Committee and was subject to an additional markup in the Rules Committee. Today, we have had a robust debate on the bill and seven amendments, five of which were offered by colleagues in the minority.

Congress has a bipartisan bad habit writing vague legislation that sounds nice, but leaves the dirty work to unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies. This practice has allowed the Congress to claim credit for popular aspects of laws, and blame regulatory agencies for increased costs or the otherwise negative effects of the regulations.

Agencies are also starting to bypass Congress by writing regulations that stretch the bounds of their delegated authorities. The administration has declared an intent to pursue their agenda by pushing items they could not get through Congress through regulatory actions instead. Indeed, laws they could not pass in Democratic supermajorities in the last Congress are now being attempted, against the will of the Congress, to be implemented by regulation.

What we have proposed in the REINS Act is very simple: Congress should at the very least be accountable for regulations with $100 million of annual economic impact or more. These rules are classified by the administration as major rules.

The REINS Act is not anti-regulation, and it is not pro-regulation. What we're saying is let's have a transparent and accountable process for implementing new regulations.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, small business owners cited complying with government regulation as the biggest problem facing them today. Public Notice did a poll recently that found that a majority of Americans believe Congress should approve regulations before they can be enforced.

Our economy is struggling to recover, and more than 13 million Americans are still out of work. Congress needs to do a much better job of creating a pro-growth environment that increases our competitiveness and rewards entrepreneurship and ingenuity.

Everyone agrees that regulations can have a significant and detrimental impact on jobs and our economy. Even President Obama described regulations that stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal earlier this year.

The REINS Act lays down a marker to say that Congress should be directly accountable for the most expensive regulations that could stifle innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.

In the words of the great Speaker from Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicholas Longworth, I ask all of my colleagues to strike a blow for liberty, to vote for accountability. I oppose the motion to recommit. Vote against the motion to recommit. Support the REINS Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 479 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, H. Res. 479. H. Res. 479 provides for a structured rule so that the House may consider H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act.

The rule gives the House the opportunity to debate a wide array of important, germane amendments offered by Members from both sides of the aisle. Better known as the REINS Act, the underlying legislation is a pivotal bill that would change the very way Washington does business.

The REINS Act takes a step back and looks at our current regulatory process, where Congress passes broad, general laws and then lets the executive branch interpret and regulate them however they see fit. H.R. 10 brings us back to the vision that our Founding Fathers had for this Nation and for the institution of Congress. It would ensure that our three branches are coequals, the way they were designed to be. H.R. 10 would hold Congress accountable for setting America's regulatory policies. It makes Congress do the work that our Founders intended this institution, the first branch, to do: to regulate.

Mr. Speaker, I know that regulations have been a buzz word up here in Congress recently, and I think it has become so popular, so frequently discussed because people within the Washington Beltway are finally starting to wake up to the fact that those in my home State of Florida have been telling me since before I ever came here: that regulations matter. The government can't really do much to actually create jobs or to physically put people back to work. We might wish it were so, but we don't have the magic job formulas on either side of the aisle that we can use to suddenly create millions of jobs for the nearly 9 percent of Americans who are currently out of work. What we can do is create an environment where real job creators--small businesses and private companies--can gain access to capital and operate with as much regulatory certainty as possible.

Unfortunately, it's hard to create such an environment when the executive branch is constantly churning out one major regulation after another. According to the Congressional Research Service, during his first 2 years in office, Federal agencies under the leadership of the Obama administration published over 175 major rules. These regulations impose tens of billions of dollars annually on our economy and on consumers. This is on top of the continuing burden of redtape that we are already up against, which the Small Business Administration estimates to cost $1.75 trillion--$1.75 trillion--yearly.

The Federal Register is sort of like the daily newspaper of the Federal Government. It holds all Federal agency regulations, proposed rules and public notices, Executive orders, proclamations, and other Presidential documents.

According to the National Archives' Web site, you should read the Federal Register if, among other things, your business is regulated by the Federal Government; if you're an attorney; if your organization attends public hearings; if you apply for grants; if you're concerned with government actions that affect the environment, health care, financial services, exports, education, and other major policy issues. Reading this recommendation, it sounds to me like they're saying if you're an active and informed member of the American public, you need to know what's in the Federal Register.

What they don't mention is that the complete Federal Register is 72,820 pages long. That's over 145 reams of paper that contain regulations. To help put it in perspective, that's 725 pounds of paper. And for my Floridian friends, that's about three Josh Freemans, the quarterback for the Tampa Bay Bucs.

Within these 73,000 pages of regulations are regulations that result in 120 million hours of paperwork burdens for United States businesses every year. The 2011 Federal Register, the rules that are contained within, cost American employers $93 billion in compliance costs, which equals about 1.8 million jobs.

Think about everything that job creators could do instead of spending hundreds of millions of hours filling out paperwork for the Federal Government, all of the jobs that could be created if they weren't spending money complying with regulations that Congress hasn't even put on them, but regulatory agencies have.

H.R. 10 really does ``rein'' in these burdens. Instead of letting the White House decide what the regulations should be, only allowing Congress to disapprove an executive's action, H.R. 10 flips the current system on its head.

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

In 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service, executive agencies published over 100 major rules. These basically are rules that went into effect simply because the President said it was so. The REINS Act says: no more.

Now, once the executive branch issues a rule, Congress needs to approve it, otherwise it never takes effect. It's stunning that something so simple, that Congress should make the laws, can be so contentious.

I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say if Congress just wrote better, more precise laws, the Executive wouldn't need to regulate through these rules. The problem is that sometimes the executive branch agencies have shown they're using their regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative process.

For example, after it was clear the Senate wasn't going to pass cap- and-trade, which really ought to be called cap-and-tax, the EPA just went ahead and started regulating greenhouse gases through the rulemaking process, cutting Congress out of the process altogether. This year's most expensive rule, the greenhouse gas/CAFE standards, is estimated to cost $141 billion. That's greater than the entire GDP growth for the United States in the first quarter of 2011.

We're not all constitutional scholars. I'm certainly not. But if one thing is clear, Congress is the one who makes the laws. It's not that Congress makes the laws unless they don't make the laws the President wants them to make. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act brings us back to the basic foundation of our government. It says that not only does Congress provide the legislative intent, but it also provides the legislative oversight as the rule comes back if it's a major rule that's going to cost over

$100 million to our businesses and citizens of this country.

That's what we're designed to do, to make tough decisions. That's why I'm so proud to cosponsor this bill. It's why I'm proud to sponsor this rule, and it's why I'm proud to vote for both the rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow Rules member, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Yes. I have one further speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated that the REINS Act-- this act that we are talking about--``would revolutionize government in practice and help restore the representative democracy the Founders envisioned.'' Profound words. While discussing regulatory reform, Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a contributor to Forbes magazine said that ``reaffirming Congress' accountability to voters for agencies' most costly rules is a basic principle of good government.'' And Jonathan H. Adler, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said in a congressional hearing earlier this year that the REINS Act ``offers a promising mechanism for disciplining Federal regulatory agencies and enhancing congressional accountability for Federal regulation.''

The REINS Act brings accountability back to the regulatory process. I would agree that some regulations are necessary. We all want clean air and clean water. There's no doubt that we need that. We need a safe and healthy environment. We need safe food if we want to protect ourselves and our families. But regulations at what cost?

Through the rulemaking process, the EPA has put a new burdensome standard on water quality in Florida alone. With the numeric nutrient rule the EPA wants to take over the State's

water system. And because they are Washington bureaucrats trying to create a D.C. solution for a Florida problem, the requirements they have set on the State of Florida are scientifically impossible to reach given our State's natural phosphorous levels in our waters. Compliance will require an investment of billions of dollars that will be passed on--to whom? The Florida taxpayers, of course, effectively resulting in a new tax levied on all Floridians. Another analysis estimates that the EPA rulemaking will impose statewide costs ranging from $3.1 billion to $8.4 billion per year for the next 30 years.

To put that in perspective, Florida's total budget is only $64 billion annually. The REINS Act is what people in Florida need and what people in the country need if we're going to keep executive agency rulemaking in check.

We've heard about a number of issues on this House floor. We've heard about issues as they relate to unemployment and to the payroll tax holiday. These issues, though, aren't what are in front of us today. It's really about the REINS Act. It's really about getting government off the backs of people. It's about making Congress accountable for the actions of the agencies that have their authority granted through Congress. It's not the other way around.

Regulatory agencies don't enact laws for Congress. Congress enacts laws. Congress enacts and gives the authority to those who regulate, but Congress can't walk away from its authority to oversee the rules, particularly the major rules, that are promulgated by these agencies-- that are costing us jobs, that are costing us billions of dollars every year.

You've heard about it from all of my colleagues who spoke on this side of the aisle. I don't know when Congress lost its way-- Representative Bishop talked about it years and years ago--but Congress did lose its way. It's so much easier to just pass a law and say, You know what? Let the regulatory folks figure out how this is going to shake out at the end.

That's not what we were elected to do. We were elected not only to pass laws but to make sure that the regulations that are proposed by those agencies that have the authority from this Congress are responsible to the people. We need to be responsible to the people who elected us, not the other way around--not responsible to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

It's what I hear from all the businesses in my district. It's what I hear from the people I represent. They want government to get out of the way, not to end all regulations like you hear some of my friends across the aisle say. That's not what we're talking about. We are, though, talking about a congressional review before it actually comes to pass so that we stand up as a body and say, You know what? This is just not good for America.

The Keystone pipeline is a perfect example of a jobs bill. They keep talking about the lack of jobs bills. Had the Keystone pipeline come to fruition, which the President has pushed off until 2013, there would have been 25,000 immediate jobs to create and construct that pipeline, and there would have been 100,000 new jobs within the areas of Texas and Louisiana as it relates to the processing of that oil.

The last time I looked, Canada was a friend, but we buy oil from countries that hate us. Do you know what Canada said?--that China is ready to step in and help them out. Is that really what we want, or do we want to bring jobs to America?

With all that has been said, we're to the point at which we need to talk about regulations, and that's what this bill does. It allows seven amendments that are germane to come to the floor--two Republican and five Democratic amendments.

With that, I am happy to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 10.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The American people today have been hit by an onslaught of unnecessary Federal regulations. From the Obama administration's health care mandate to the increase of burdens on small businesses, government regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation.

By its own admission, the administration is preparing numerous regulations that each will cost the economy $1 billion or more per year. Its 2011 regulatory agenda calls for over 200 major rules which will affect the economy by $100 million or more each every year.

Employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, are rightly concerned about these costs and the costs that regulations impose on their businesses. In a Gallup poll conducted last month, nearly one- quarter of small business owners cited compliance with government regulations as their primary concern. That should motivate us to take action today.

Rather than restrain its efforts to expand government, the administration now seeks to accomplish through regulatory agencies what it cannot get approved by Congress. The REINS Act gives the people's representatives in Congress the final say over whether Washington will impose major new regulations on the American economy.

More than once this year, the President himself has talked about the dangers that excessive regulations pose to our economy. He has called for reviews of existing regulations. He has professed a commitment to more transparency. The President has stated that ``it is extremely important to minimize regulatory burdens and avoid unjustified regulatory costs.''

Unfortunately, the President's actions speak louder than his words. But rather than make good on its statements, the Obama administration has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the previous administration over a similar time period. And the White House has admitted to Congress that, for most new major regulations issued in 2010, government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits.

It is time for Congress to take action to reverse these harmful policies. With the REINS Act, we can hold the administration accountable for its unjustified regulatory assault on America's job creators; and we can guarantee that Congress, not unelected agency officials, will be accountable for all new major regulatory costs.

The American people want job creation, not more regulation. The REINS Act reins in out-of-control Federal regulations that burden America's businesses and job creators.

I thank Mr. Davis of Kentucky for introducing this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support the REINS Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to set the record straight. The bill is not antiregulatory but pro-accountability. It will enable both Republican and Democratic majorities in Congress to make the final calls on major regulations that come from administrations of either party. Majorities of either party can be expected to approve regulations whenever appropriate, but the key is that Congress always be held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for yielding me time, and I also thank him for offering this amendment.

The bill restores to Congress the accountability for the regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. As Congress makes those decisions, one of the most important facts to consider is whether new regulations produce jobs or destroy them.

The amendment guarantees that when agencies submit new regulations to Congress, their cost benefit analyses will be made available.

The amendment also assures that agencies will specifically identify regulations' impact on private and public sector jobs. With that information, Congress will be in a position to determine whether to approve the rules. And the American people will be in a postilion to hold Congress accountable for those decisions.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The amendment carves out of the bill regulations that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines will lead to net job creation.

The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives OMB to manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too often, OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement.

In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so by destroying real, existing jobs and ``creating'' new, hoped-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. For example, some Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules will shut down existing power plants. EPA and OMB may attempt to justify that with claims that more new, ``green'' jobs will be created as a result.

In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the jobs winners and the jobs losers. And there is no guarantee that all of the new, ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist.

The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose between new jobs and old jobs.

Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It chooses the way the Framers intended, in which accountability for laws with major economic impacts rests with Congress. It rejects the way Washington has operated for too long, where there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials.

The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The amendment leaves it to each agency to determine how it will conduct cost-benefit analyses of new regulations. This is regrettable. Each agency will be tempted to design rules that it can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs.

The Regulatory Accountability Act, which the House passed on December 2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost- benefit analyses. This improves quality and prevents deceptive actions by rogue agencies. The amendment undercuts that effort.

Similarly, under Executive Order 12866, the President has long required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. The amendment undermines that requirement, too.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for yielding me time.

I share my colleague's desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to major regulations and appreciate his interest in the subject.

I know that recent major regulations have hit West Virginia and the gentleman's constituents particularly hard. The Environmental Protection Agency's major regulations that affect energy sources and power production are among the most troubling.

I look forward to continued discussions with the gentleman on these and other issues of interest to him.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

The amendment carves out of the bill essential categories of major regulations. These include all major rules on food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, clean water and clean air.

In many cases, these are precisely the agency actions that impose the most costs, do not produce enough benefits and do not faithfully implement Congress' intent.

A good example is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. EPA estimated that the rule would cost $11 billion annually to achieve at most just $6 million in total mercury reduction benefits. That is a 1,833:1 cost-benefit ratio.

Most of the benefits EPA identified to justify the rule had nothing to do with the control of hazardous air pollution.

Proponents of regulation have nothing to fear from the REINS Act. When agencies prepare good major regulations, Congress will be able to approve them. This provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get major regulations right the first time.

When an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, Congress will be able to correct the agency and send it back to the drawing board.

In the end, the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation that Congress approves. But until it does, those who must pay for regulations will not have to pay for the costs of a misguided major rule.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.

The amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from Congress' authority to approve regulations under the REINS Act. That shield should be denied.

For example, take the Department's rule to extend compliance deadlines for States to issue secure drivers' licenses under the REAL ID Act. Ten years after 9/11 hijackers used fraudulent licenses to board airplanes used to murder 3,000 innocent Americans, DHS continues to extend the deadline.

Another example is the Department's 2009 rule to recall the Bush Administration's ``no-match'' rule. That regulation helped companies to identify illegal workers and comply with Federal immigration law.

When the Obama Administration issued its rule to repeal ``no-match,'' it put the interests of illegal immigrants above those of millions of unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.

This is the kind of decision making that takes place at the Department of Homeland Security. Congress should use every tool it can to reassert its authority over the legislative rulemaking functions it has delegated to DHS. The REINS Act is available to do that.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there's a very dangerous and cynical game being played in the House. Americans need jobs now; and instead of spending our time on job creation, the majority continues to waste time focusing on bills like this one that make it easier for polluters to spoil our air and water; make it easier for big banks to take the kind of risk that brought on our recession; and make it easier for unsafe products from China to poison our children.

The majority seems to think if they repeat their message that Big Government is destroying jobs enough times, it will become true. But economic surveys and economists from the left, right, and center say it's all a made-up argument. Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, writes that ``regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

My friends on the other side of the aisle know this bill won't create jobs. And here's how we know. When the bill is considered for amendment, they will block an amendment that simply says if the independent experts conclude a rule will create jobs, it can go into effect without all these time-consuming extra steps. Why would we want to slow down a rule that could create tens of thousands of jobs? If this bill will create jobs, like the majority claims, what's the harm in saying the bill does not apply when it conflicts with the important goal of creating more jobs for Americans who are out of work? The majority cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

It has now been a full 336 days since Republicans took control of the House, and they have yet to put a real jobs bill on the floor. But as of today, they've made time for 23 bills that would roll back protections for public health and safety. They provided ample floor time to de-fund public radio; to make it easier for felons to carry concealed weapons; and to reaffirm our national motto, which did not need reaffirming; and, of course, did we want to micromanage light bulbs. Why? Does the majority really think these are pressing national issues that demand our attention when we should focus on jobs?

There's no doubt in my mind that in addition to making our workplace, food, water, and airplanes less safe, H.R. 10 would endanger our fragile economic recovery, impeding job creation. Having the right amount of safeguards against bad behavior is part of what has made this country so economically successful. We all know it was only after the financial sector was deregulated so much that we had a catastrophic housing crisis and the recession. Indeed, what regulation there was basically looked the other way. Indeed, in 2008 the Bush administration itself estimated that benefits to the economy for major rules outweighed the cost by at least 2\1/2\ to 1. Possibly as much as 12 to 1, they said.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not explain the violence this bill does to the process of passing the laws, the process executing the laws, and the important constitutional principle of separation of powers. The practical result of this bill's new, additional steps in the regulatory process would be to grind the wheels of government to a halt.

Our system of government already has checks and balances built in to make sure that the regulations do what Congress says they should. That is why we have oversight committees. After Congress writes the laws, there are numerous statutes and executive orders that ensure an open process as an agency writes the regulations, requiring them to listen to the stakeholders and the public, to conduct cost-benefit analyses, and justify every aspect of the proposed rule. Congress also continuously keeps an eye on the executive branch by exercising its authorization, appropriation, and oversight functions. Furthermore, entities whose activities are regulated have access to the courts.

When Congress last considered a nearly identical bill in the 1980s, now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who was then an associate White House counsel in the Reagan administration, criticized the legislation for ``hobbling agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules.'' He said that such a requirement ``would seem to impose excessive burdens on regulatory agencies.''

Justice Roberts was right then, and he's right today. Congress writes the laws. We rely on professionals and experts--doctors, engineers, microbiologists, statisticians, and so forth--to spell out the details of those policies so the law can be implemented and enforced in a way that makes sense.

If this bill is enacted, those decisions will instead be made by Members of Congress with no or little expertise in what they're talking about. In addition, with the staffs we now have, it would be an impossibility for us to able to do it. Americans are sick of Congress's political gamesmanship. The last thing they want to do is extend its reach into vast new areas of our government.

But the Rules Committee's primary responsibility in relation to H.R. 10 is to ensure the integrity of the legislative process in the House. In sending H.R. 10 to the House floor, the committee failed its responsibility. The sheer volume of additional measures the House and Senate would be required to consider should H.R. 10 become law is enough to force Congress to come back into the Capitol and work in shifts. Otherwise, we would never get it all done.

Even though President Obama's administration has promulgated new rules at a slower rate than the Bush administration did in his last 2 years, the 100 or so new major bills on our schedule would mean we would have to take up seven of them a day on every other Thursday just to try to get it done. Inevitably, we could not finish it all; and under this ridiculous bill, it means we would vote on the rest without debate.

If the Rules Committee had bothered to hold any hearings on the bill, maybe the majority would realize how drastically H.R. 10 undermines the deliberative process in this House.

Finally, I want my colleagues to know that this rule deems passage of a nongermane amendment that was written by Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee. The Republicans made an embarrassing discovery at the Rules Committee last week. They realized that the hundreds of new measures the House will consider under this bill would actually violate both their new CutGo rule and the pay-as-you-go statute that Democrats put in place. So the Republicans had a choice: they could either violate the budget rules a hundred times every year or just pass an amendment to make these embarrassing violations vanish. Which one do you guess they chose?

This rule includes a magic amendment that makes all the budget violations go away in a big ``poof.'' But here's the best part: They're using the famous deem-and-pass procedure, which means the mystery amendment will be automatically adopted and the House will never vote on the Ryan amendment.

I guess after all we've seen this year, it should not surprise me that last Tuesday the majority blocked our amendment to strip the special tax breaks from big oil companies supposedly because it was nongermane. That was Tuesday. On Thursday, they just ignored the germaneness rule for this budget amendment.

But, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we've had 336 days of Republican control of the House with no jobs agenda. It is imperative that we extend the payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits before Congress leaves Washington for the holidays. That is why I will amend this rule to require those

votes if we defeat the previous question.

So I'm urging my colleagues on the other side, please stop worrying about your campaign message and start getting the message: America's top priority is job creation.

Let's defeat this restrictive rule and get back to work on jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I would be happy to yield my colleague an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

I am prepared to close as well.

Mr. Speaker, the majority's prioritization of special interests over the economy goes beyond their crusade against government protections for our clean air and water, and safe food and workplaces. Not only has the majority refused so far to pass an extension of the payroll tax holiday, meaning even though we're still struggling to recover from a recession, the average American family will see a $1,000 increase in their taxes come January.

They have also refused so far to extend unemployment benefits for the 2.1 million Americans whose benefits will run out in the coming months if Congress does not act. Congress has never allowed emergency extended benefits to expire when a jobless rate has been anywhere close to its current level of 8.6 percent.

Some Republicans like to argue that unemployment benefits give people a disincentive to work. But how are people supposed to take jobs that don't exist? Believe me, most of the people who are unemployed in our country right now would much rather get a job, but they can't find one. There are still roughly 6.5 million fewer jobs in the economy today than when the Great Recession started in 2007.

So we're supposed to let them and their children starve or face possible eviction or foreclosure? All of the money that the unemployed receive in benefits goes right back into the economy when they buy groceries, clothes, and health care. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that allowing these Federal unemployment benefits to expire would hurt consumer demand and, thereby, cost the U.S. economy 528,000 jobs.

And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that providing extended unemployment benefits is one of the most effective job creation strategies available during a period of high joblessness, stating, ``Households receiving unemployment benefits tend to spend the additional benefits quickly, making this option both timely and cost- effective in spurring economic activity and employment.''

The choices facing us today couldn't be any clearer. That's why, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require that we vote on an unemployment benefit extension and that we vote on a payroll tax holiday extension for next year before we leave for the holidays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can do the right thing for working families and the millions of Americans looking for jobs.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.