H.Res. 27

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues who have commended the Appropriations Committee on the fine work they have done under difficult circumstances on the Homeland Security bill. It had been our hope that their fine work would have been rewarded by its passage in December, but the Republican leadership in the House decided that we would not pass the bill then to give some certainty to how Homeland Security would be funded in this year and instead toss it over until the new year.

We take an oath to protect and defend the American people. Their safety is essential to everything else. And Homeland Security is a place where we have a very big component for protecting and defending the American people. That is why we were so disappointed that, of all bills, the Republicans would pull that one bill out of the pack and say we are just doing this for a matter of weeks. It came with the promise that after the first of the year we would, of course, pass a Homeland Security bill. That was December.

In December, the Republicans said, no, we don't want to have that certainty, not just yet. Then, along came January, Paris. ``Je suis Charlie,'' around the world it is echoed, everybody coming together, heads of state, leaders of countries, whether you were present there or not, everybody present in the moment and the time since of support for protecting people throughout the world from terrorism.

It seems like that affected almost everybody, except it didn't penetrate the walls of this Chamber because here we are, once again, putting off, by other distractions, how we would pass as quickly as possible a homeland security bill. And what is interesting to me is that some of our colleagues are using immigration as the excuse.

But, Mr. Chairman, what further is interesting is that now they are saying it is not about immigration--which, of course, it has always been about passing an immigration bill and we don't even have to have this discussion. They are saying it is about the Constitution.

I have been here since President Reagan was President. I don't remember anybody calling up the Constitution when President Reagan used his executive action in the family fairness legislation. I don't remember anybody bringing up the Constitution when President George Herbert Walker Bush further expanded protections for people in our country--President Clinton and President George Herbert Walker Bush. So this is very interesting to hear it. But I do want to put this in perspective, and it will take a little time.

There is a strong legal and historical precedent to support the extension--we are just talking about deferred action here--to a broad category of people who have strong equities to our country. The Immigration and Nationality Act and the judicial precedent make clear that the Executive maintains broad discretion to determine how immigration laws are to be enforced. Such discretion extends to decisions regarding whether to defer enforcement against entire categories of people, whether such categories are defined by nationality or some other common characteristic that makes them particularly deserving of an act of administrative grace.

This legal authority has existed since the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, was first enacted in 1952 and has been exercised in various ways and under various names over the past 62 years. Based upon the administration's expansive prosecutorial discretion authority, the President could extend deferred action to persons who would qualify for registered provisional immigration status under S. 744, which passed the U.S. Senate on June 27, 2013, by a vote of 68-32.

The President could similarly establish a separate deferred action for persons deemed essential for agriculture in recognition of the fact that our country's agriculture industry and millions of jobs that rely upon it are largely dependent on the labor of unauthorized workers as for the parents of young people who have already received deferred action under DACA.

When Congress first passed the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, in 1952, it charged the Attorney General with the administration and enforcement of immigration laws and authorized the Attorney General to ``perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this act.''

Courts have relied upon this delegation of authority to support the principle that the act ``commits enforcement of the INA to the Attorney General's discretion.''

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which many of us were here for, Congress further entrusted the newly created Secretary of Homeland Security with the responsibility of ``establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.''

In doing so, Congress acknowledged the inherent authority of enforcement agencies to decide whom to investigate, detain, charge, and prosecute under the law. The Supreme Court ``has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through criminal or civil process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.''

That is the Court's decision. If you want me to read the further authorities on that I will, but in the interest of brevity, courts consistently have applied this principle in the immigration context, and, in particular, to grants of deferred action and extended voluntary departure.

In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court relied upon the broad discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials, including ``whether it makes sense to pursue removal of all,'' to strike down almost all of Arizona's sweeping anti-immigration law. Because Arizona's law could result in ``unnecessary harassment of some aliens''--that is their term--for example, a veteran, a college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation whom Federal officials determine should not be removed, the law ``violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted at the discretion of the Federal Government.''

The idea that immigration enforcement efforts should be focused on high-priority targets has not always been controversial. Guidance pertaining to the use of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context has been issued at least as far back as 1976. Under President George W. Bush, in recent memory, the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, reaffirmed prosecutorial discretion guidance issued during the Clinton administration and reiterated the responsibility of ICE agents and officers to use discretion in identifying and responding to meritorious health-related cases and caregiver issues.

Indeed, 15 years ago, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress joined together on a letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno urging her to issue guidelines that would provide specific instructions to agency personnel in order to alleviate some of the hardship caused by our immigration laws. Democrats and Republicans signed it, and the letter accepted the premise that ``the principle of prosecutorial discretion is well-established'' and asked the INS to explain why it would pursue removal cases that would result in unjustifiable hardship rather than prioritizing enforcement efforts against more serious cases.

Although the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program announced 2 years ago provides the most recent example of temporary relief from removal being offered to a substantial class of persons, it is the ``Family Fairness'' program adopted by President Ronald Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush that proves to be the strongest precedent for building upon DACA and offering deferred action to a larger class of persons who meet certain criteria.

This is very interesting, my colleagues, because in 1986, Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, IRCA. The law provided a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants but provided no relief to the children and spouses of such persons who were not themselves able to meet the requirements for legalization. Indeed, when the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill to the floor, it wrote:

It is the intent of the committee that the families of

legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by

virtue of the legalization. They will be required to ``wait

in line'' in the same manner as immediate family members of

other new resident aliens.

But on October 26, 1987--less than 1 year after IRCA was enacted into law--President Reagan made the decision to defer enforcement against some of the close family members of persons who obtained lawful status under IRCA.

Now this is President Reagan acting. President Obama is acting in the absence of congressional action; President Reagan is acting in the presence of congressional action and saying, You didn't go far enough.

Under the Family Fairness program issued by then-INS Commissioner Nelson, the Reagan administration offered ``indefinite voluntary departure''--along with the opportunity to apply for employment authorization--to undocumented children residing with their parents if both parents--or in the case of a single-parent household, the parent with whom the child resides--had obtained lawful status under the act. Spouses of persons who obtained lawful status could also be granted indefinite voluntary departure and work authorization by demonstrating the existence of certain compelling or humanitarian factors.

Would you be suing President Reagan for doing that, as some of you are friends of the court in the suit against the President, as you are using the Constitution as your argument here today?

In response to continuing concerns that the Family Fairness program was too narrowly defined, President George Herbert Walker Bush went further 3 years later, expanding the program to apply to all spouses and all children of persons who were legalized under IRCA, provided they met certain requirements. The memorandum issued by then-INS Commissioner Gene McNary clarified that voluntary departure and employment authorization would be granted to such persons for a 1-year period and would be subject to extensions without limit.

The Reagan administration--would you be taking the President to court, would you be arguing that he acted unconstitutionally on the floor of the House? People didn't then.

The INS developed a new form--``Declaration, Ineligible Family Member of Legalized Alien''--precisely for the purpose of allowing undocumented persons who did not qualify for legalization under IRCA to affirmatively request relief from the threat of deportation and authorization to work lawfully. According to reports at the time, INS Commissioner McNary contemplated that the program could have affected as many as 1.5 million undocumented immigrants. Explaining the rationale for expanding the earlier program, McNary stated:

It is vital that we enforce the law against illegal entry.

However, we can enforce the law humanely. To split families

encourages further violations of the law as they reunite.

In the end, only a fraction of the people eligible for relief under the Family Fairness program obtained such protection, but that is only because the Immigration Act of 1990 was enacted less than 1 year after the program was expanded by President Bush. Section 301 of that bill contained a family unity program that largely codified the executive actions taken by President Reagan and President Bush.

The parallels between the Reagan-Bush Family Fairness program and what is being proposed at the present time are uncanny. There are several lessons that can be drawn from this past precedent.

First, the authority to provide temporary relief from removal to a large percentage of the undocumented population has long existed, and past Presidents have exercised such authority.

Second, such authority existed even when the Executive's authority would seem to be at its weakest--where Congress specifically declined to legislatively provide the relief granted administratively. The President is now being asked to take administrative action in the face of historic intransigence on the part of House Republicans after the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill buoyed by popular support, overwhelmingly supported in a bipartisan way in the Senate, but nothing happening in the House.

By contrast, the Reagan administration adopted the Family Fairness program less than 1 year after Congress enacted the last comprehensive immigration reform bill that contains specific criteria for legalization and knowingly excluded from protection the very people affected by the administration action.

Just as I said before, even when Congress acted, President Reagan said we can do better. Nobody argued the Constitution at the time. Well, if they did, history does not recall it.

Third, the scope of the relief now being considered by the administration is entirely consistent with the Family Fairness program after it was expanded by President George Herbert Walker Bush. According to demographic work performed by the Pew Research Center, there were an estimated 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 1990. By extending the Family Fairness program to cover 1.5 million unauthorized immigrants at the beginning of that year, President Bush used executive authority to protect approximately 42.9 percent of the undocumented population from removal and offer them work authorization.

I don't remember any uproar in Congress. Many of us were here at that time.

Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center estimated that there were 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States as of March 2012. If the administration takes steps to protect 5 million undocumented immigrants from removal, as a recent article suggested, that would extend temporary relief to 42.7 percent--a lower percentage than President Bush protected--of the undocumented population now in the country.

Finally, the most important lesson that can be learned from the Family Fairness program is that bold executive action can sometimes help change the legislative dynamic, helping to break the gridlock and pave the way to legislative reform. The only reason the Reagan-Bush Family Fairness program did not provide indefinite voluntary departure and employment authorization for many years without legislative approval--essentially a grant of deferred action--is that Congress did act and take steps, following the lead of the Presidents, to largely codify the President's program and provide such relief for removal and employment authorization itself.

At the time the Bush administration expanded family fairness, legislation to extend similar protections were stuck in Congress, having passed the Senate in 1989 but having seen no legislative action in the House. Less than 8 months after the administration's action, the House passed its version of the bill. A conference committee was

convened, and IMMACT was quickly enacted into law. The same pattern can be observed in many of the cases described in which the administration granted extended voluntary departure, deferred enforced departure, or deferred action to a broad category of people defined by their nationality or some other compelling characteristic. And Congress subsequently enacted legislation to permit such people to obtain lawful permanent residence.

I hope that will happen. The President has executive orders. Hopefully, Congress will codify that.

The Reagan-Bush Family Fairness program is just one of the many examples of past Presidents deciding to defer removal efforts and offer employment authorization to large classes of people.

In 1960, the Kennedy administration granted extended voluntary departure to many Cubans who otherwise would have been subject to deportation. Over the next 20 years, the INS granted similar protections to nationals of more than a dozen other countries. Such grants have sometimes, but not always, resulted in the enactment of special legislation permitting extended voluntary departure beneficiaries to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents.

In 1966, Congress enacted such legislation for Cubans. Again, President Kennedy acted. In 1966, Congress enacted such legislation for Cubans granted extended voluntary departure.

Congress did the same in 1977 for Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians who were permitted to remain in the country on EVD, extended voluntary departure; and again in 1987 for recipients from Poland, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Uganda.

I have personal experience on the initiative.

After Tiananmen Square, there were concerns that Chinese nationals residing in the United States, primarily as scholars and students, would face repression if forced to return home. Congress passed a bill to allow these Chinese nationals to remain, which President George Herbert Walker Bush vetoed.

This is my bill.

Then, in 1990, it passed the House and passed the Senate, went to his desk, and he vetoed it. It had strong bipartisan support. We could fight the veto in the House, but in the Senate, at the moment of truth, the Senate upheld the veto.

President Bush promised that he would issue an executive order extending deferred enforced departure, or DED, to an estimated 80,000 Chinese nationals. While the President did not want it to be an act of Congress for fear of what an insult it might be to the Chinese Government as they were crushing people in the streets in Tiananmen Square and arresting people, he did promise to do an executive order, which he did.

Following President Bush's executive order, Congress acted quickly to permit Chinese nationals granted protection from removal and employment authorization to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residence.

In 1991, President Bush extended that to approximately 2,000 Persian Gulf evacuees of various nationalities who were airlifted from Kuwait the previous year during the Persian Gulf War. The persons evacuated were chosen because they had children who were U.S. citizens or because they provided protection to U.S. citizens during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

In 2000, Congress enacted a private immigration law to permit those who had not already been permanent residents by other means to obtain permanent residence.

In 1992, President George Herbert Walker Bush also extended a DED, deferred enforced departure, to approximately 200,000 Salvadorans who fled civil war and previously had been protected from removal pursuant to a grant of temporary protected status, or TPS. President Bill Clinton later provided DED to Haitians in 1997, and President George Walker Bush extended DED to Liberians in 2007.

Finally, again, this administration has extended deferred action to broad categories of people on two prior occasions. First, in 2009, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services created a process in which surviving spouses of deceased U.S. citizens and the qualifying children of such spouses could apply for deferred action.

The process was created because it was the position of the Department of Homeland Security at the time that no immigration relief was available under the law to protect surviving members from removal and that action was needed to address the humanitarian concerns.

The DACA program announced by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012, presented the second deferred action program created under this administration. As of June 30, 2014, over 580,000 persons had been granted deferred action under the program.

The use of Presidential ``parole power'' is one of the oldest and most-established provisions of Presidential authority in immigration matters. Parole was first used to allow the entry of refugees who would otherwise be excluded by the national origins quota system.

Presidential parole was codified in the original 1952 INA, Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorized the use of discretionary authority to parole aliens into the United States ``for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest.''

In 1956, President Dwight David Eisenhower first used his parole authority to allow 900 World War II orphans into the country and later paroled approximately 30,000 Hungarians. This use of parole power marks the first of many mass admissions by future administrations.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon collectively allowed approximately 600,000 Cubans to be paroled into the country; and Presidents Ford and Carter paroled approximately 300,000 Indochinese from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

In response to a concern that the parole power was being used to admit large numbers of persons not covered by international refugee laws, Congress enacted the Refugee Act in 1980, which amended the INA to provide a process for the admission of refugees. The act also limited the administration's ability to parole refugees into the country, absent compelling reasons in the public interest, but left untouched the general parole authority.

Nevertheless, several Presidents subsequently used the parole authority to allow the entry of groups of persons who arguably could have been considered ``refugee populations.''

President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1989 created a program that allowed individuals in Vietnam who were ineligible for refugee status to enter the country as ``public interest parolees,'' if they were able to prepay their travel expenses and provide affidavits of support from sponsors in the United States.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton paroled approximately 7,000 Iraqi Kurds to Guam and allowed them to apply for asylum to the United States. In 2006, President George W. Bush created a program which allowed the United States to parole certain Cuban medical professionals who have been conscripted to study or work in a third country under the direction of the Government of Cuba.

In 1996, Congress once more amended the statutory parole authority to apply only on a case-by-case basis; nevertheless, as the terms are not defined by the statute, they are open to interpretation by the administration.

In fact, the several instances in which parole authority was used by past Presidents demonstrate that promoting family unity can serve humanitarian goals or provide a significant public benefit.

The Lautenberg Parole Program, implemented by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988, granted parole to individuals whose refugee claims were denied, but who had family reunification concerns.

In 2007, President George Herbert Walker Bush established the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program to expedite the reunification of Cuban families by paroling into the United States beneficiaries of approved family-based immigrant petitions, so they might wait together with their family members until a visa became available.

In 2007, President Bush created a program to authorize the parole of certain refugee derivative family members who had aged out and, therefore, could not be eligible for refugee status.

Given the administration's broad statutory parole authority, the lengthy visa backlogs that exist in most immigrant visa categories, and the humanitarian interests and significant public benefits that would attach to the unification of families, the President could make parole available to the spouses, sons, and daughters of American citizens and lawful permanent residents who face a separation of a year or more or, in the case of less than a year, when hardship is in addition to the separation.

This would not permit family members to skip the line, but would allow them to wait in the United States with their family members.

Authority for parole in place already is present in the country. The legal authority for parole in place was originally recognized in 1998. That opinion was endorsed the following year by the Commissioner of the INS, and it was reaffirmed in 2007 by the Bush administration DHS general counsel under President Bush, as I say.

According to these legal opinions, INA grants discretion to parole ``any alien applying for admission to the United States,'' and INA expressly defines an applicant for admission to include ``an alien who is present in the United States who has not been admitted.'' As a result, parole can be granted to persons who are present in the country without having previously been admitted to the country.

The list goes on and on, and I have so much more that I want to tell our colleagues, but what I am saying to you is that there is legal authority for the President to take action under the law. There is Presidential precedent, bipartisan since President Eisenhower, since these laws were passed, to do so.

To all of a sudden say we are having a debate now about the Constitution when we are supposed to be passing a law to protect and defend that Constitution and, instead, we are taking an exception to the interpretation of it--as I said, President Eisenhower, every President, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Nixon, the list goes on and on--all of the Presidents since President Eisenhower and certainly since President Reagan and both President Bushes and President Clinton, all acted in this way.

Many of us were Members of Congress in those Presidencies. If somebody wants to come forward and say that he was a voice in the darkness, but nothing significant ever emerged to challenge the constitutionality of what the Presidents did, so why now, especially now, December?

We are not going to protect and defend by extending this bill with certainty for Homeland Security. Paris, the whole world is in unity, galvanized by wanting to stop terrorism and to do everything in our power to do so, and we in this House are hesitating to do that.

If we want to take up an immigration bill and argue that the President doesn't have the authority to do what he has done, but with an intention to act ourselves, that would be the appropriate place to have this debate, but to hold up the Homeland Security bill, which Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey and the subcommittee chairs-- and we are very proud of David Price on our side on that, and I am sure that all the Republicans are proud of their Members on their side, because they came up with, under difficult circumstances, a good bill-- let us just pass it, why don't we, and then let's get on with passing an immigration bill and debate what authorities the President has, and if we don't like them, then debate the merits of what he did and pass some of that into law.

But to say that he doesn't have the authority to do it and this is about the Constitution really raises some serious questions.

Again, we should be talking about how we are creating good-paying jobs in our country. That is what people want us to do. Let's just pass this bill, get it done, and go on to how we can invest in better infrastructure and bigger paychecks for the American people.

Lifting the economy and the purchasing power of our workers really creates an atmosphere where immigration and other humanitarian initiatives are better received.

I took the time tonight because I just was listening to this debate and how people were saying that the President was acting outside the scope of the Constitution, that he had overreached.

Then I asked my colleagues: What are you thinking, that you would hold up the Homeland Security bill and that you would not question the authority of Republican Presidents--or even the Democratic Presidents when they had done this--but you are questioning the constitutionality of actions taken by President Obama?

The time is not right for this. The time is right for us to pass an immigration bill. The time is right for us to, right now, tonight, pass a clean--tomorrow morning, pass a clean--reject these amendments, reject these amendments and pass a clean Homeland Security bill, so we can get on with that and then have a clear debate about immigration.

I want to thank the staff of the Judiciary Committee for the important work that they have done, Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member John Conyers for the work that they have done educating Members about what the history is on this subject--and it is a recent history. I thank them for their leadership and their service.

I ask our colleagues to reject these amendments, disabuse yourself of any notion--because it isn't a full-fledged idea--but any notion that the President is acting in an unconstitutional way. Let's get on with our work.

When we say, ``Je Suis Charlie,'' we are not just identifying with a magazine office in Paris--that would be important enough--but we are identifying with the entire effort to protect people from terrorism.

That is what the Homeland Security Committee was established to do. That is what this legislation will fund. Let's remove all doubt that we are going to do it as soon as possible.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

The American people are now four elections and more than 6 years into the worst period after an economic crisis since the Great Depression. Despite some encouraging recent signs, jobs have not truly recovered. Wages have definitely not recovered. The rate of new business startups has not recovered. Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historic levels, real wages have fallen, and dependency on government assistance has increased. People have been giving up because they can't find a confident path forward.

In this recovery, we are not recovering; we are losing something precious. We are losing what has allowed this Nation to contribute more to human happiness than any other nation in history. We are losing the opportunity to live the American Dream. What is that dream? It is the dream that if you work hard, if you take responsibility for your life, if you reach for the opportunity that your human potential makes possible, you will be free to succeed. You will be free to pursue your happiness. And as you achieve that happiness, your children will have a better chance in life than you did.

All across this country, people who have been struggling, people whose jobs and wages have been disappearing, people who have been leaving the labor pool for the dependency pool, people who have seen no way possible to start a new business, can feel in their bones that this American Dream, the dream that they cherish and their children need, is slipping away.

What is killing the American Dream?

It is not ordinary Americans. It is not foreign enemies. It is not global phenomena. It is not natural disasters. More than anything else, it is the endless drain of resources that takes working people's hard- earned wages to Washington, and Washington's endless erection of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth.

Today, the combined economic burden of Federal taxation and regulation is over $3 trillion, almost 20 percent of our economy. Of that, the larger part is the burden of regulation--now estimated to reach at least $1.86 trillion. That Federal regulatory burden is larger than the 2013 gross domestic product of all but the top 10 countries in the world. It is half the size of Germany's entire gross domestic product. It is more than one-third the size of Japan's. Most important, that burden is $15,000 per American household, nearly 30 percent of average household income in 2013.

No one says we need no regulation, but who can credibly say we need regulation that costs this much.

America cannot possibly retain its competitive position in the world and create opportunity and prosperity for all Americans if the Federal Government continues to drop such a crushing weight on our economy.

My Regulatory Accountability Act addresses head on the problem of endlessly escalating, excessive Federal regulatory costs, and it addresses it in clear, commonsense ways that we can all support because it is based on principles proven in bipartisan practice from Presidents of both parties since Ronald Reagan.

What are those principles? Here are some of the most important: require agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative that meets statutory objectives; if needed to protect public health, safety, or welfare, allow flexibility to choose costlier rules, but make sure the added benefits justify the added costs; improve public outreach and agency factfinding to identify better, more efficient regulatory alternatives; require agencies to use the best reasonably-obtainable science; provide on-the-record but streamlined administrative hearings in the highest-impact rulemakings--those that impose $1 billion or more in annual costs--so interested parties can subject critical evidence to cross-examination; require advanced notice of proposed major rulemakings to increase public input before costly agency positions are proposed and entrenched; strengthen judicial review of new agency regulations to make sure the Federal Courts can enforce these requirements.

In a nutshell, this bill says to every agency: Fulfill the statutory goals the United States Congress has set for you. Protect health. Protect safety. Protect consumers. Protect the vulnerable. You are free to do that, and you should do that whenever Congress gives you those orders, but as you achieve those goals, make sure you do it with better public input, better-tested information, and in the least-costly way.

The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen? America will start to save hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't need to spend. That is real money that can be put to better use creating jobs and wages for our constituents, real money that hardworking Americans can use to start and grow their own businesses, real money that can be used to restore the American Dream, all without stopping a single needed regulation from being issued.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has worked with us across the aisle on this legislation for the last two Congresses. This issue goes back far before that as well. I want to thank him for his work on this.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a new member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

I am pleased that my colleague from Michigan has raised the issue of support for this legislation because there is a lot of it. I have in front of me a list of 156 organizations that support this legislation. They cover a wide array of organizations, of groups, of businesses, of small business associations, and of chambers of commerce.

I will name just a few: the 60 Plus Association, the Indoor Environment & Energy Efficiency Association, the Aggregate and Ready Mix Association of Minnesota, the American Architectural Manufacturers Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Coatings Association, the American Composites Manufacturers Association, the American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Council of Independent Laboratories, the American Exploration & Mining Association, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Foundry Society, the American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers Coalition, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Loggers Council, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the American Subcontractors Association, the American Supply Association, the American Trucking Associations, the American Wholesale Marketers Association, the American Wood Council.

We haven't even gotten all the way through the A's on this list which covers, as I say, a wide array of organizations that is interested in manufacturing good-quality products for Americans and in providing services, like architectural services and others. I want to make sure that everyone understands that there is broad-based support for this.

I also want to correct a misimpression left by some of the speakers on the other side who have pointed to a study that we have not relied upon for the basis of this legislation. I want to call to everyone's attention--in fact, at the appropriate time, I will request that it may be made a part of the Record--a study from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI, entitled--not the 10 Commandments, which we are all familiar with--but ``Ten Thousand Commandments, An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State,'' by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., which has provided valuable information with regard to this.

Another thing people have said is, Oh, this is going to add a tremendous burden to the regulators when they write these regulations.

I can tell you we don't have 160 different organizations supporting this legislation because they think their regulatory burden is too low; they think the burden is too high and that not enough energy and effort is going in on the part of those regulators to pay attention to what they are doing when they write regulations.

They have complained about the new things that this bill requires, and let me just read a few of them to you.

It requires documentation that the agency has considered

the specific nature and significance of the problem the

agency may address with a rule . . .

It seems to make pretty good common sense that, if you are going to write a regulation, you should be studying and understanding the nature of the problem you are supposed to be addressing with the regulation.

. . . documentation that the agency has considered whether

existing rules could be

amended or rescinded to address the problem in whole or in

part; documentation that the agency has considered reasonable

alternatives for a new rule or other response identified by

the agency or interested persons; documentation that the

agency has considered the alternative of no Federal re-

sponse . . .

In other words, they may not need to do anything.

. . . documentation that the agency has considered the

potential direct costs and benefits associated with potential

alternative rules and other responses; documentation that the

agency has estimated impacts on jobs that are associated with

potential alternative rules and other responses.

The requirements are like that throughout, and they are commonsense reforms. In fact, they are so common sense that many of these were initiated by President Reagan, and many of these have been carried forward by subsequent administrations, including the current administration.

What we are asking for today is don't hide the ball on the American people when you write regulations. Provide the documentation of how you wrote the regulation, what you considered when you wrote the regulation, whether or not that regulation is the most cost-effective way to do it, and whether or not the regulation is even needed at all. These are commonsense reforms, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), the vice chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which will help to rein in the excessive power of the executive branch of the Federal Government and provide for common sense being brought to the writing of Federal Government regulations, saving American taxpayers and consumers billions if not trillions of dollars. It is badly needed. It is long overdue.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory

State 2014 Edition

Competitive Enterprise Institute Executive Summary

(By Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.)

In February 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

reported outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2013 of $3.454 trillion

and projected spending for FY 2014 at $3.543 trillion.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama's federal budget proposal

for FY 2015 seeks $3.901 trillion in discretionary,

entitlement, and interest spending. In the previous fiscal

year, the president had proposed outlays of $3.778 trillion.

Despite high debt and deficits, we have been unable to avoid

entering the era of $4 trillion in annual spending.

We experienced trillion dollar deficits between 2009 and

2012, and CBO projects that deficits will exceed $1 trillion

again by FY 2022. Trillion dollar deficits were once

unimaginable. Such sums signified the level of budgets

themselves, not of shortfalls. Yet at no point is spending

projected to balance in the coming decade. President Obama's

2015 budget projects deficits that are smaller than recent

heights--with 2014's claimed $649 billion to fall to $413

billion in 2018--before heading back into the CBO-predicted

stratosphere.

Many other countries' government outlays make up a greater

share of their national output, compared with 20 percent for

the U.S. government, but in absolute terms, the U.S.

government is the largest government on the planet. Only four

other nations top $1 trillion in annual government revenues,

and none but the United States collects more than $2

trillion.

Regulation: The Hidden Tax

The scope of federal government spending and deficits is

sobering. Yet the government's reach extends well beyond

Washington's taxes, deficits, and borrowing. Federal

environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations

cost hundreds of billions--perhaps trillions--of dollars

annually in addition to the official federal outlays that

dominate policy debate.

Firms generally pass the costs of some taxes along to

consumers. Likewise, some regulatory compliance costs that

businesses face will find their way into the prices that

consumers pay and out of the wages workers

earn. Precise regulatory costs can never be fully known

because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often

indirect. But scattered government and private data exist

about scores of regulations and about the agencies that issue

them, as well as data about estimates of regulatory costs and

benefits. Compiling some of that information can make the

regulatory state somewhat more comprehensible. That

compilation is one purpose of the annual Ten Thousand

Commandments report, highlights of which follow:

Among the five all-time-high Federal Register page counts,

four have occurred under President Obama.

The annual outflow of more than 3,500 final rules--

sometimes far above that level--means that 87,282 rules have

been issued since 1993.

There were 51 rules for every law in 2013. The

``Unconstitutionality Index,'' the ratio of regulations

issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by

the president, stood at 51 for 2013. Specifically, 72 laws

were passed in calendar year 2013, whereas 3,659 rules were

issued. This disparity highlights the excessive delegation of

lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

This author's working paper, ``Tip of the Costberg,'' which

is largely based on federal government data, estimates

regulatory compliance and economic impacts at $1.863 trillion

nnually.

U.S. households ``pay'' $14,974 annually in regulatory

hidden tax, thereby ``absorbing'' 23 percent of the average

income of $65,596, and ``pay'' 29 percent of the expenditure

budget of $51,442. The ``tax'' exceeds every item in the

budget except housing. More is ``spent'' on embedded

regulation than on health care, food, transportation,

entertainment, apparel and services, and savings.

The estimated cost of regulation exceeds half the level of

the federal budget itself. Regulatory costs of $1.863

trillion amount to 11.1 percent of the U.S. gross domestic

product (GDP), which was estimated at $16.797 trillion in

2013 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

When regulatory costs are combined with federal FY 2013

outlays of $3.454 trillion, the federal government's share of

the entire economy now reaches 31 percent. The regulatory

``hidden tax'' surpasses the income tax. Regulatory

compliance costs exceed the 2013 estimated total individual

income tax revenues of $1.234 trillion.

Regulatory compliance costs vastly exceed the 2013

estimated corporate income tax revenues of $288 billion and

approach corporate pretax profits of $2.19 trillion.

If it were a country, U.S. regulation would be the 10th

largest economy, ranked between India and Italy.

U.S. regulatory costs exceed the GDPs of Australia and

Canada, the highest-income nations among the countries ranked

most free in the annual Index of Economic Freedom and

Economic Freedom of the World reports.

The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St.

Louis, Missouri, and the Regulatory Studies Center at George

Washington University in Washington, D.C., jointly estimate

that agencies spent $57.3 billion (on budget) to administer

and police the federal regulatory enterprise. Adding the

$1.863 trillion in off-budget compliance costs brings the

total regulatory enterprise to $1.92 trillion.

The Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the

fourth highest level in history.

Federal Register pages devoted specifically to final rules

rose to a record high of 26,417.

The 2013 Federal Register contained 3,659 final rules and

2,594 proposed rules.

Since the nation's founding, more than 15,177 executive

orders have been issued. President Obama issued 181 as of the

end of 2013.

President George W Bush averaged 63 major rules annually

during his eight years in office; Obama's five years so far

have averaged 81.

Although there are over 3,500 rules annually, public

notices in the Federal Register exceed 24,000 annually, with

uncounted ``guidance documents'' among them. There were

24,261 notices in 2013 and 477,929 since 1995.

According to the fall 2013 ``Regulatory Plan and the

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory

Actions'' (which lists federal regulatory actions at various

stages of implementation), 63 federal departments, agencies,

and commissions have 3,305 regulations at various stages of

implementation.

Of the 3,305 regulations in the pipeline, 191 are

``economically significant'' rules, which the federal

government defines as imposing at least $100 million in

annual costs. Assuming that those rulemakings are primarily

regulatory implies roughly $19 billion yearly in future off-

budget regulatory effects.

Of the 3,305 regulations now in the works, 669 affect small

businesses. Of those, 391 required a regulatory flexibility

analysis: 278 were otherwise noted by agencies to affect

small businesses.

The five most active rule-producing agencies--the

Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce,

Transportation, and Health and Human Services--account for

1,451 rules, or 44 percent of all rules in the Unified Agenda

pipeline.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was

formerly consistently in the top five, is now sixth, but

adding its 179 rules brings the total from the top six

rulemaking agencies to 1,630 rules, or 49.3 percent of all

federal rules.

The most recent Small Business Administration (SBA)

evaluation of the overall U.S. federal regulatory enterprise

estimated annual regulatory compliance costs of $1.752

trillion in 2008. Earlier SBA reports pegged costs at $1.1

trillion in 2005 and at $843 billion in 2001. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with those figures at the

time. Meanwhile, a subset of 115 selected major rules

reviewed during 2002-2012 by the OMB notes cumulative annual

costs of between $57 billion and $84 billion.

The short-lived series of budget surpluses from 1998 to

2001--the first since 1969--seems like ancient history in

today's debt and deficit-drenched policy setting, as the CBO

projects annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars

over the coming decade. When it comes to stimulating a

limping economy, reducing deficits and relieving regulatory

burdens are key to the nation's economic health. Otherwise,

budgetary pressures can incentivize lawmakers to impose off-

budget regulations on the private sector, rather than add to

unpopular deficit spending. A new government program--for

example, job training--would require either increasing

government spending or imposing new regulations requiring

such training. Unlike on-budget spending, the latter

regulatory costs remain largely hidden from public view,

which makes regulation increasingly attractive to lawmakers.

The Disclosure and Accountability Imperatives

Cost-benefit analysis at the agency level is already

neglected; thus, at minimum, some third-party review is

needed. Like federal spending, regulations and their costs

should be tracked and disclosed annually. Then, periodic

housecleaning should be performed.

A problem with cost-benefit analysis is that it largely

relies on agency self-policing. Having agencies audit their

own rules is like asking students to grade their own exams.

Regulators are disinclined to emphasize when a rule's

benefits do not justify the costs involved. In fact, one

could expect new and dubious categories of benefits to emerge

to justify an agency's rulemaking activity.

A major source of overregulation is the systematic

overdelegation of rulemaking power to agencies. Requiring

expedited votes on economically significant or controversial

agency rules before they become binding would reestablish

congressional accountability and would help affirm a

principle of ``no regulation without representation.''

Openness about regulatory facts and figures can be

bolstered through federal ``regulatory report cards,''

similar to the presentation in Ten Thousand Commandments.

These could be officially issued each year to distill

information for the public and policy makers about the scope

of the regulatory state.

Mr. Chairman, I hear from the other side of the aisle about how low-income people are being taken care of already because the President of the United States has told these agencies to ``take into account their status.'' But guess what? That has no judicial enforceability. So if a low-income person really wants to seek redress of their grievances through a regulation that is going to cost them their job, cost them their business, whatever the case might be, they have no recourse to the courts. Among those who suffer most unfairly from overreaching regulations are lower-income families and individuals.

The other side has criticized our list of entities supporting this. But these are all job-creating organizations. I haven't heard of many job-creating organizations who are opposed to this legislation.

New regulations often represent the policy preferences of elites and pro-regulatory advocates. Recent regulations aimed at driving down the use of coal and other fossil fuels are an example of this.

What growing research shows, and what policy elites too often ignore, is that the costs of new regulations often have regressive effects on those with lower incomes. For example, when electricity rates go up because Federal regulators clamp down on the use of cheap energy, real money that lower-income households need to secure better housing, better educational choices, or other essential needs goes instead to pay for unnecessarily excessive regulations.

This is unfair. Agencies should be required to identify and reveal the unseen adverse effects of proposed new regulations on low-income households. The gentleman's amendment accomplishes this important goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, to the point just raised by the gentleman from Georgia, I want to quote Daniel Webster, who is also quoted right up there above us in the Chamber.

He says, ``It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.''

I share and welcome the gentleman from Georgia's concerns about the impact of regulations on the people and on their jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill. It includes the Rothfus-Barr amendment added to the legislation in the 113th Congress that requires agencies to do a much better job identifying adverse job impacts before they impose the regulations.

The gentleman's amendment represents the wrong way to address job concerns. That is because it would give the executive branch a strong incentive to manipulate its jobs impact and cost-benefit analysis to avoid the requirements of the bill, including the Rothfus-Barr amendment, rather than comply with that requirement.

The amendment also puts the cart before the horse, offering carve- outs from the bill, based on factors that cannot be determined adequately unless the important analytical requirements in the bill are applied in the first place.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule or guidance pertaining to health or public safety. Health and public safety regulation done properly serve important goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals.

But Federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an immense part of total Federal regulation and has been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job-and-wage destroying regulations. To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would be to severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower the crushing cumulative costs of Federal regulation.

Consider, for example, testimony before the Judiciary Committee last term by Rob James, a city councilman from Avon Lake, Ohio, about the impacts of new and excessive regulation on his town, its workers, and its families.

Avon Lake is a small town facing devastation by ideologically driven, antifossil-fuel power plant regulations. These regulations are expected to destroy jobs in Avon Lake, harm Avon Lake's families, and make it even harder for Avon Lake to find the resources to provide emergency services, quality schools, and help for its neediest citizens--all while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions that are the stated target of the regulations.

Let me point out to the gentleman and anyone else concerned that health and safety regulations are a tantamount concern of this legislation. In fact, I will quote from page 19 of the bill:

The agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other evidence and information concerning the need for, consequences of, and alternatives to the rule.

I will also point out that the American Council of Independent Laboratories supports this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are more than 6 years into the Obama administration. Real unemployment is still a massive problem in this country. America's labor force participation has dropped to record lows. The nominal unemployment rate is down, but that is because desperate Americans dying for work are abandoning the workforce in droves.

The only real, long-term solution is to restart the engines of economic growth in this country. One way to do that is to pass the Regulatory Accountability Act. This bill promises real relief from our $1.86 trillion-per-year regulatory cost nightmare. If enacted, it would change night to day in terms of the level of regulatory costs Washington imposes on American families--without stopping one needed regulation from being issued.

My friends across the aisle say that won't happen. They say the bill will bring all good rulemaking to a halt. My goodness, it is ObamaCare all over again. My friends across the aisle haven't read the bill. You have to read the bill to know what is in it. If you read the bill, you understand it. You see right there on page 27:

The agency shall adopt the least costly rule considered

during the rule making . . . that meets relevant statutory

objectives.

Take away a few key words and what does that say?

The agency shall adopt the . . . rule . . . that meets . .

. statutory objectives.

So the rules will still be made and statutory goals will still be met, but they will be done in a cost-effective way that makes sure that all of the necessary cost-saving measures and all of the necessary considerations are taken into account before imposing new burdens on the American people.

Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this good, job- creating, dollar-saving bill for the American people.

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

I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, I would almost attempt to bring back ``Swanee River,'' or some old song that reflects ``here we go again.''

This is a bill that has been recycled. It has been recycled and it has been recycled. I believe the underlying premise of the bill is contrary to the values of the American people. This is proposed as a Regulatory Accountability Act to generate jobs and opportunity. I rise in opposition to a bill that stymies progress, hinders clean water and clean air, and provides mountainous obstacles to the national security of America.

What is the underlying premise of H.R. 185? The underlying premise of this bill is to require 70 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act, and it requires Federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all indirect costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost.

Mr. Chairman, is there logic to saying that you are streamlining the APA process when you are adding a mountainous, tall, multifloor skyscraper of requirements? Is it accurate to suggest that you are making the process better when you are causing agencies of varying sizes already suffering from the restraints of the budget-cutting process of my friends on the other side of the aisle, are you suggesting that they can then analyze indirect costs and actually save money?

We live in a climate and an era of difficult times. As a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, as our Secretary of Homeland Security has said, these are dangerous times. We have already indicated our sympathy for the people of France and viewed it as a wake-up call. Do you realize that some of the agencies facing this crisis will be Homeland Security, Health and Human Services? Does anyone recall the tragedy of Ebola and how quickly action was needed?

This undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural burdens for Federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. In fact, this is not helpful when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and far.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the question: What are we saving here?

What money are we saving? Why are we undermining the very protection of this Nation?

Again, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, and, again, homeland security, all of these very important elements of safety for the American people will be undermined by H.R. 185. Today, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to stand on the side of the American people and vigorously oppose H.R. 185.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015.

This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of the proposal and alternatives.

In essence though--this H.R. 185 only adds to the procedural burdens of federal agencies--making it harder for them to effectively carry out their missions.

The Regulatory Accountability Act:

Creates confusion and delay by adding over 70 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act and requires federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all the ``indirect'' costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost.

Mr. Chair, the tragedy last week in France was a wake-up call--and we simply cannot delay, obfuscate, and slow down the regulatory process.

Slows down the rulemaking process by significantly increasing the demands on already constrained agency resources to produce the analysis and findings that would be required to finalize any new rule.

Undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural burdens for federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. Mr. Chair, this is not helpful legislation when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and far such as franchise terrorism, keep our water clean, and our food safe.

Allows any interested person has the ability to petition the agency to hold a public hearing on any ``genuinely disputed'' scientific or factual conclusions underlying the proposed rule.

hinders the production of guidance documents

``Super-mandates'' cost-benefit analysis measures for major guidance documents. In addition it makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus leading to increased regulatory uncertainty.

Provides regulated industries and companies multiple opportunities to challenge agency data and science and thus further stretch out the already lengthy rulemaking process--again--undermining the process.

makes the least costly rule the default choice

Requires that an agency default to the ``least costly'' rule unless it can demonstrate--out of all the possible alternative rules--that additional benefits justify any additional costs and offer a public health, safety, environmental, or welfare justification clearly drawn from the authorizing statute including such critical measures as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

expands judicial review of agency judgments

This bill discourages agencies from rulemaking and from being able to do their jobs because judges are emboldened to substitute their own opinions for the findings of agencies.

Expands the scope of judicial review.

The Regulatory Accountability Act is designed to further obstruct and hinder rulemaking rather than improve the regulatory process.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to VOTE AGAINST the Regulatory Accountability Act and ensure that progress is not thwarted and government operations not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairman and rise to support the Jackson Lee amendment with a little journey down memory lane of just a few days ago.

Just a few days ago in northern Nigeria, a heinous terrorist group by the name of Boko Haram killed 2,000 people. Pillaging and killing has been their mantra, their definition.

A few days before that, we watched in horror as three terrorists killed 17 people in the nation state of France, our ally for many, many, many years--our partner, if you will, in the virtues of liberty and democracy.

My amendment speaks to the diminishing impact that this present legislation would have on the security of our Nation. My amendment simply asks that those issues dealing with Homeland Security be exempted from this rule.

The rule itself causes there to be some 70 particulars that have to be met when rulemaking begins. Can you imagine subjecting national security to that kind of criteria?

As indicated, this bill modifies a Federal regulatory or rulemaking process by codifying many requirements included in Presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule. We mentioned that in my earlier discussion.

My amendment would simply exempt from the bill's congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.

As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, having served previously as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am concerned about legislation that throws a monkey wrench in the footsteps of Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, ICE, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and many others.

I am concerned when our Secretary of Homeland Security indicates that we live in dangerous times and, therefore, calling upon America not just to see something and say something, but to be conscious of these dangerous times.

Can you imagine the necessity of a rulemaking that then must be burdened with 70 new levels of criteria defining the budget analysis or cost benefit?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do think we have oversight responsibilities, and I do think that we should be responsible in those oversight responsibilities and fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible, but I do not think that this legislation that has come to us time and time again and obviously failed is any answer to what we are trying to do.

Let me, first of all, say that this bill does not do as the Constitution has asked, and that is the ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union'' in the beginning of our Constitution.

This does not adhere to that, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.

Sally Katzen, formerly of the Obama and Clinton administration, mentioned how valuable regulations can be to helping the American people.

This is an impediment. I don't want to impede a regulatory scheme to help with cybersecurity; I don't want to impede the Coast Guard if it has intelligence about an attack on the Houston port with some regulatory scheme that doesn't allow it to move forward or to be able to address that question.

What we are suggesting is there are obstacles being put in front of national security. I ask that you support this amendment by exempting the Department of Homeland Security that is entrusted with the security, domestic security of the United States of America.

I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

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

What Does the Regulatory Accountability Act Do?

This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of the proposal and alternatives.

In addition, the measure creates statutory thresholds for regulations to be deemed ``major'' rules and ``high impact'' rules--i.e., rules likely to cost more than $100 million or $1 billion a year--and requires that these rules proposals be subject to additional criteria and procedural steps.

What Does the Amendment Do?

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 emergencies.

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.

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.

Professor Sally Katzen, a former Obama and Clinton Administration official, discussed the benefits of regulation which an agency like the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates, and that is brought home by the tragic events in Nigeria and France, where terrorists struck with horrible efficiency last week. Professor Katzen stated:

Moreover, while we hear a lot about the costs of

regulation, we rarely hear about the benefits of regulation--

for example, improving our health or the air we breathe or

the water we drink protecting our safety in our homes, our

automobiles, or our workplaces; or increasing the efficiency

of our markets.

Those who embrace cost/benefit analysis should speak to the

benefits as well as the costs of regulation. Here, there are

data--incomplete as they may be--which clearly show that the

benefits of rules issued during the Obama Administration have

been substantially greater than the costs of those rules. For

example, the 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and

Costs of Federal Regulations showed that for FY2011 (the most

recent fiscal year for which data are available), the rules

``were estimated to result in a total of $34.3 billion to

$89.5 billion in annual benefits and $5.0 billion to $10.1

billion in annual costs.

And make no mistake about Mr. Chair, 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, an issue that should be at the forefront of everyone's legislative agenda in this new Congress.

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.

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% increase).

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 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.

Simply put, 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 cannot hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people. No mission is more sacrosanct--and by bottling up the process with bureaucratic red tape.

As Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said recently:

Recent world events call for increased vigilance in

homeland security.

H.R. 185 makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus leading to unnecessary regulatory uncertainty and undue delay-- something that the American people can ill-afford. We cannot hamstring the Department when it is trying to cope with threats such as franchise terrorism. My amendment frees up Homeland Security to do its critical mission of protecting the American people.

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

This GOP Bill Is Opposed by A Long List of National Organizations. National organizations opposing the bill include such organizations as the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which itself is a coalition of more than 70 consumer, environmental, health and public interest groups:

Consumer Federation of America;

Consumers Union;

Americans for Financial Reform;

Better Markets

Center for Responsible Lending

American Association for Justice

Center for Effective Government;

Public Citizen

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Members of the House, I strongly oppose H.R. 185, the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act. Under the guise of attempting to improve the regulatory process, H.R. 185 will, in truth, undermine that process. It invites increased industry intervention and imposes more than 60--6-0--new analytical requirements that could add years to the regulatory process.

They make no bones about it in this bill. As a result, H.R. 185 would seriously hamper the ability of government agencies to safeguard public health and safety, as well as environmental protections, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections. That is what we are debating at this moment.

My greatest concern is that H.R. 185 will undermine the public health, safety, and well-being of Americans. The ways in which it does it are almost too numerous to list here, but I will mention a few.

First, H.R. 185 would override critical laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake. Imagine, we would pass a law that would override critical laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

This means that agency officials will now be required to balance the costs of an air pollution standard with the costs of anticipated deaths and illnesses that will result in the absence of such regulations.

At a hearing on an earlier version of this bill in the 112th Congress, one witness--our witness--testified that if this measure were in effect in the 1970s, the government ``almost certainly would not have required the removal of most lead from gasoline until perhaps decades later.''

This explains why numerous respected agencies, consumer organizations, public interest groups, labor movements, and environmental organizations all strongly oppose this dangerous legislation.

For example, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--consisting of more than 70 national public interest, labor, consumer, and environmental organizations--say the bill will ``grind to a halt the rulemaking process at the core of implementing the Nation's public health, workplace safety, and environmental standards.''

Another organization, very much respected, the Natural Resources Defense Council, adds that the practical impact of the measure before us now, H.R. 185, ``would be to make it difficult, if not impossible, to put in place any new safeguards for the public, no matter what the issue.''

Now, I am not sure if the authors of this measure understand the deep criticism and reservation that the scientific and academic community have about the practical impact of this measure.

Another, the Consumer Federation of America states that H.R. 185 ``would handcuff all Federal agencies in their efforts to protect consumers'' and that it ``would override important bipartisan laws that have been in effect for years, as well as more recently-enacted laws to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe food, and unsafe consumer products.''

Do we understand what it is we are dealing with here this day?

Further, the AFL-CIO warns that the bill's procedural and analytical requirements add years to the regulatory process--adds years to the regulatory process--delaying the development of major workplace safety rules and will ``cost workers their lives.''

As more than 80 highly-respected administrative law academics and practitioners observe, the bill's many ill-defined new procedural and analytical requirements will engender ``20 or 30 years of litigation before its requirements are clearly understood.'' What do we have in mind? What is trying to be accomplished here?

My next concern is that this legislation would give well-funded business interests the opportunity to exert even greater influence over the rulemaking process and agencies.

We already know that the ability of corporate and business interests to influence agency rulemaking far exceeds that by groups representing the public. In other words, the groups representing the public already have less influence to influence agency rulemaking, and we are here proposing in broad daylight to make it even worse, much worse.

But rather than leveling the playing field, this measure will further tip the balance in favor of business interests by giving them multiple opportunities to intervene in the rulemaking process, including through less differential judicial review.

Finally, this measure is based on the faulty premise that regulations result in economically stifling costs, kill jobs, and promote uncertainty.

While supporters of H.R. 185 will undoubtedly cite a study claiming the cost of regulation exceed $1.8 trillion, the Congressional Research Service, Center for Progressive Reform, and the Economic Policy Institute all found that a prior iteration of this study was based on incomplete and irrelevant data.

In fact, the majority's own witnesses at a hearing on nearly identical legislation clearly debunked this argument. Mr. Christopher DeMuth, who appeared on behalf of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, testified that the employment effects of regulation ``are indeterminant.''

The other central argument put forth by proponents of this legislation--that regulatory uncertainty hurts businesses--has similarly been debunked.

Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations observes:

Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans

that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue

an agenda supported by the business community year in and

year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political

opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high

unemployment.

That is from a Bush administrator, who was a senior policy analyst in the Reagan administration, Bruce Bartlett.

Not surprisingly, the administration issued a strong veto threat just yesterday, stating that the bill ``would impose unprecedented and unnecessary procedural requirements on agencies that will prevent them from efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities.''

Rather than heeding these serious concerns, the supporters of H.R. 185 simply want to push forward without any hearings, markups, or deliberative process in this Congress with a bill that has absolutely no political viability.

I urge, I plead with my colleagues to oppose this very dangerous legislation, and, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of our most effective members of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a man who has served the House Judiciary Committee with great distinction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. Grijalva another minute.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

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

I notice that my friends on the other side have not named one person, academic scholar, or organization that supports this measure. I would now like to identify the letters that we have received on our side that have been very critical--very disturbed--by the gross approach of the authors of this measure.

Supporting us and opposing the bill is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The AFL-CIO is opposed to this measure. The American Bar Association is opposed. The Americans for Financial Reform is opposed.

The Center for Effective Government is opposed. The Center for Progressive Reform is opposed. The Center for Responsible Lending is opposed. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, representing more than 70 national consumer, public interest, labor, and environmental organizations and more than 80 State and local organizations and affiliates is opposed.

The Consumer Federation of America is opposed. The Consumers Union is opposed to this measure. The Natural Resources Defense Council does not support this measure. Public Citizen is opposed to this. United Steelworkers is opposed. The Union of Concerned Scientists is opposed. The United States PIRG, which is the Public Interest Research Group, is opposed.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think that our case against this measure has been well-made.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, last evening, the President of the United States indicated that he will not sign this bill, that he will veto it if it were to pass, and I am hoping that that doesn't happen.

The measure fails in a great way. It would create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and would further impede the implementation protections for the American public.

This bill would make the regulatory process more expensive, less flexible, and more burdensome, dramatically increasing the costs of regulation of the American taxpayer and working class families.

This is an incredible situation that we have to debate here. I am hopeful that the logic, the rationale, the threat of the executive branch to veto the bill will all cause us to carefully consider how unnecessary this measure is. I urge that we not support H.R. 185.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the McKinley amendment--as bad as things already are in the bill--adds an additional requirement to the bill's more than 60 analytical new requirements for the rulemaking process by requiring agencies to also consider economic competitiveness and impact on low-income populations in the rulemaking process. Now, the AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, and Coalition for Sensible Safeguards all oppose this amendment because it is redundant and inflexible.

This amendment is largely redundant of existing requirements. Executive Order 12898 already protects both low-income communities and communities of color. That executive order already requires agencies to take into account distributional impacts on these populations. So I want you to know that this is not the way to go. This amendment makes a totally unacceptable bill even more unacceptable.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It would not change the bill's overarching regulatory purpose, nor does it address the many concerns expressed by scores of public interest groups that strenuously oppose the bill.

I think the President is very sensitive to the working class, the poor, and minorities especially, and I enjoy hearing this commentary coming from the other side of the aisle.

If the majority were serious about protecting the low-income population, it would have made in order the amendment offered by our colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, to promote environmental justice. The Rush amendment would have safeguarded existing protections while mitigating the devastating consequences of H.R. 185 on both minority and low-income populations.

I repeat, AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, and the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards all oppose the McKinley amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to say to my colleague on Judiciary, Ms. Jackson Lee, that this amendment is very important. It exempts any rule promulgated by Homeland Security, and as a result of this amendment, current law would apply to the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a very perceptive and important part of us moving forward on a really critical consideration because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent rulemaking, and it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.

Summary: This amendment exempts any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from H.R. 185. As a result of this amendment, current law would apply to DHS.

This amendment is necessary because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent rulemaking and it is essential that the DHS not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.

Effective rulemaking is a critical tool for DHS to be able to protect the Nation from acts of terrorism and to help communities recover from natural disasters, among many other things.

For instance, DHS has already proposed several rules to safeguard maritime security, as well as a rule proposed by the Coast Guard to revise regulations relating to the construction, design, equipment of deep-water ports that are used as terminals for importing and exporting oil and natural gas. This rule would provide for regulatory flexibility, while also preventing another environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.

DHS has also proposed a series of rules to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. This rule guarantees the equal treatment of persons in all DHS programs under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

These proposed rules clearly demonstrate the need for this amendment, which underscores the importance of rulemaking across a wide spectrum of concerns.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman on his amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would exempt from H.R. 185 all rules or guidance that relate to health or public safety, including food safety, workplace safety, consumer product safety, air quality, or water quality. Existing APA procedures would continue to apply to these types of rules.

The amendment highlights the real-world consequences of H.R. 185, which would be to stifle agencies' ability to promulgate rules that protect public health and safety.

Among other things, H.R. 185 requires agencies to perform cumbersome and lengthy cost-benefit analyses of all rules. Worst of all, it would override substantive provisions of numerous statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, that prohibit or limit agencies from considering cost.

For instance, the Food and Drug Administration has begun proposing rules and guidance under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2011, representing the most substantial reform to food safety in over 70 years.

In November 2014, the FDA proposed rules to implement this Act to prevent foodborne illness outbreaks associated with contaminated produce, among other things.

According to the Center for Disease Control, one in six Americans get sick every year from foodborne diseases, affecting about 48 million people yearly. Of these, 3,000 people die every year from these diseases, which are largely preventable.

Without this amendment, H.R. 185 would drown the FDA in additional requirements prior to issuing new rules to protect Americans from the contamination of produce and other rules that are critical to keeping the U.S. food supply safe.

The cumulative effect of these and the other changes wrought by H.R. 185 would be to substantially undermine agencies' ability to effectively regulate consumer health and product safety, environmental protection, workplace safety, and financial services industry misconduct, among other critical concerns, while doing little to help small businesses shape or comply with federal regulations.

Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regularly has reported to Congress that the benefits of regulations far exceed their costs.

Effective rulemaking is a critical tool for agencies to protect the public health and safety, from clean air and water to emergency transportation rules designed to keep Americans safe while traveling abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

First of all, when we have spending bills that make it here to the floor of the House, we traditionally have had an open amendment process for those appropriations bills. That allows Members on both sides of the aisle to offer cuts to move things around.

At the time of bloated budget deficits, why aren't the Republicans allowing any cuts to be made from this bill? They are not allowing Democrats or Republicans under a closed rule to offer savings to the Federal Government from bloated budgets.

They are limiting amendments on two other bills, a completely unrelated anti-regulatory bill and also a bill with regard to Financial Services that I offered an amendment along with Mr. Issa to improve are not allowed under this rule as well.

It is a very bad precedent for congressional procedure here in our second week to shut down ideas from both sides of the aisle to make either of these bills better beyond a select few ideas that have apparently been blessed by the Republican majority.

I heard in the Rules Committee last night--and my friend, the chair, did as well--a number of very good amendments that were offered, some that I didn't agree with, but I still thought we ought to be able to discuss and debate--I offered a few myself--but hardly any of these are actually allowed to be debated or voted on by the Members of this body.

Instead, what the Republicans have done is effectively hijack the discussion of homeland security and safety to instead have a discussion about our broken immigration system. Well, I was ready to go for that.

I offered an amendment that would have allowed us to vote on an immigration reform bill as part of the rule, one that passed the Senate with more than two-thirds support last session, one that I believe would still carry the support of more than 60 Senators--I think it would likely pass the House if it had been made in order--but I was shut down.

Instead of allowing a discussion about a solution to our broken immigration crisis, the Republicans seek to keep it alive, conflict for the sake of conflict, and to somehow lump families and children in with criminals for the same enforcement priority, which makes no sense to any law enforcement professional or any of our communities, which is why we have a broad coalition of the business community, the faith- based community, the law enforcement community, all outraged over the most recent Republican actions, which seem to cater to the far rightwing of their party, rather than seek pragmatic practical solutions to replace our broken immigration system with one that works.

With regard to the Financial Services bill, I offered a bipartisan amendment along with my colleagues, Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, to improve transparency, to modernize our financial reporting standards, to ensure that digital data was available and searchable by investors everywhere, to increase transparency with regard to public companies. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to be debated or voted on here on the floor of the House to improve this bill.

This is truly an obstructive and undemocratic approach to governing. Instead of the Members of this body--Democrat and Republican--being able to work together and propose ideas to improve bills, we are presented with bills that are ``our way or the highway,'' bills that will never become law, bills that have the threat of veto from

the President of the United States, and are presumably only being done to appease the rightwing Republican base.

Well, we should have started off this Congress with a fresh sensibility. We could have brought forward a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill, allowed Members to improve it, to make cuts, to balance our budget deficit, to move things from programs that didn't work to programs that did. We could have brought forth a real jobs bill addressing the needs of working families.

Instead, what the Republicans have chosen to do is to play politics and jeopardize the safety of our country and our homeland security over a debate that they want to have with regard to immigration without offering any solutions.

One of the things that I took away from the meeting in the Rules Committee last night, in the testimony from Members on both sides of the aisle, is that nobody thought--Democrats or Republicans--that this Republican bill that defunded DACA and undid the executive action would actually solve our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats acknowledged it wouldn't.

So rather than playing politics with our defense of our homeland, why don't we roll up our sleeves and get to work to actually fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works?

Now, look, the bill provides for consideration of the Homeland Security bill, but everybody knows it is not a serious attempt at funding the Department of Homeland Security. There is a manufactured crisis, the first step in a sure-to-fail legislative process that the President himself has said he would veto.

Why is anybody in this body--reasonable lawmakers, all of them-- placing the funding of Homeland Security at a time of increased national threat--we saw the events in France this last week--putting our defense of our homeland at risk?

Yes, our President took action. Some agree with it; some disagree with it. He used the authority that he has been given by this body to establish enforcement priorities with regard to the 10, 11, 12 million people who are here illegally.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker, if we don't solve our broken immigration system, there is only going to be more people here illegally; instead of 10 or 11 million, there could be 12 million, 14 million, 15 million, until we get serious about border security, about enforcement, about restoring the rule of law.

This bill doesn't do it. This bill says let's support children rather than criminals; let's prevent people that have registered, gotten right by the law, paid a fee, had a background check, had their fingerprints taken, let's prevent them from legally working or going to school; let's hang the threat of tearing them apart from their American kids over their heads.

Both sides acknowledge that is not the answer to fixing our broken immigration system. So let's move past this discussion, let's secure our homeland, and let's get to the discussion of how to fix our broken immigration system, which both sides agree this debate is not about.

This bill also provides for consideration of the Regulatory Accountability Act, another recycled bill from the last Congress. It is not an immigration reform bill; it is not a jobs bill. It is actually a bill that makes government function even less efficiently than it currently does.

It adds 84 new bureaucratic hurdles to make sure our food is toxin- free and safe to eat. It would bury agency rulemaking under a bureaucratic blizzard of hurdles and documentation requirements. This is a paperwork creation bill, this is a government inefficiency bill, the opposite of the direction we should be moving with regard to making government streamlined and more efficient.

Finally, this rule provides for consideration of the Financial Services bills, which this body considered last week, but again, when something doesn't pass under suspension, a procedure that requires two- thirds, the rule should hopefully enable Members on both sides of the aisle to improve upon the bill. I offered just such an improvement, as did some of my colleagues.

If the goal was to get to two-thirds rather than just pass this bill with a Republican majority, why don't we begin the difficult work of making this bill better, of improving on it, of taking ideas from Democrats and Republicans, to get this bill to the point where two- thirds of this body support it? Unfortunately, that did not occur, and this bill is being brought under a very restrictive rule.

We can do better. We can do better than closing down the traditional open process we have around amending appropriations bills. We can restore regular order and allow bills to actually be considered through the committee process here in this Congress, instead of appearing with 48 hours to read for Members of Congress, without even giving the opportunity to amend them. Unfortunately, in the second week here, the Republican majority is already making good governance a farce.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to show that Congress can and will do better if you give the Democrats and Republicans who serve in this body the ability to legislate, to offer their ideas, to work with Members on their side of the aisle and the opposite side of the aisle, and to get to a point where we can present a bill that the President of the United States will sign and will become the law of the land.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Republicans are playing partisan games with our country's border security and our safety. By tacking on unrelated immigration measures to a basic funding bill for Homeland Security, they are putting us on a path that could shut down our Department of Homeland Security and endanger the people of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider a clean version of the Homeland Security bill.

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.

We do not need to start this new Congress going down a path of legislative brinkmanship and crises of our own making. We shouldn't be treating funding for our national security like a political pawn.

There are differences of opinion about how to solve immigration. There are differences of opinion about the President's actions. The venue for taking out those disagreements is not to put the homeland security of our country at risk. We don't have to attach these controversial amendments to a must-pass bill to keep our borders secure. We have no shortage of other things we should be focusing on.

There seems to be pent-up frustration about our broken immigration system. I share that. Let's address our broken immigration system and fix it and pass immigration reform. I tried to do that in the Rules Committee yesterday. Unfortunately, that discussion is not allowed under this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule.

Instead, we are spending our time here in Congress with yet another crisis of our own making. Instead of solving pressing issues, instead of creating jobs, instead of protecting our homeland, we are putting a bipartisan, important appropriations bill right smack in the middle of an unrelated political fight.

The American people can no longer afford an immigration enforcement system that spends extraordinary sums of money every year detaining and deporting individuals with strong ties to their community and who pose no meaningful threat to anyone. We should focus on criminals rather than children. That is exactly what the President's actions do.

If the Republicans don't like it, we are happy to work with them to address the underlying issues of immigration and why we have 11 million people living here illegally in the first place. Until we do, this bill doesn't solve a thing. But let's not get hung up over the side issue and make sure that we continue to protect our homeland against a terrorist threat.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.