Adopting rules for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual measure that is being brought forward under unusual circumstances. To begin with, this measure would, believe it or not, empower our Federal legislature to undo virtually every regulation submitted to the Congress since mid-June of last year through the end of 2016 last year. The bill accomplishes this--every regulation--by authorizing Congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution, thereby depriving Members to consider the merits of each individual regulation. This presents a number of problems.

As the administration has stated, with a threat of veto of an identical bill that was considered last November, the legislation ``would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.''

This, in my view, is a cynical way of trying to legislate. For those concerned about the continued improvement of clean air and clean water, if we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me. There hasn't been any deliberative process on the bill recently. It is amazing to me that we have such opposition to the bill. It would be overwhelming to put in the over 150 labor organizations, consumer organizations, environmental organizations, and others who have openly asked us to oppose this bill.

If that isn't enough, we have the business community itself in opposition. The American Sustainable Business Council, which represents over 200,000 businesses--and I have a partial list of them--also opposes this measure. It is one of the rare instances in which I have brought to the floor legislation that is opposed by both labor and by business as well.

It is a little bit of an insult that this bill is being considered, on top of that, under a closed rule. There can be no amendments to this measure.

I am in a state of surprise that on the second day of a new Congress we would come forward with a measure that could potentially jeopardize public health and safety in so many different ways.

I think that the opposition to this measure is so overwhelming that I am surprised that without hearings, without an opportunity for amendment, we are now considering a measure that has this much opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Consumer Reports dated January 3, 2017.

Consumer Reports,

Washington, DC, January 3, 2017.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: Consumer Reports and its policy and

mobilization arm, Consumers Union, strongly urge you to vote

no on H.R. 21, the so-called ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.''

This bill would severely undermine accountability to the

public regarding important protections and safeguards.

Although the rules targeted by this legislation were

finalized relatively recently, many have been under

development for several years. Consumers Union has provided

public comment on several of these regulations that were

designed to protect consumers against unsafe products,

dishonest business dealings, and other hazards in the

marketplace that place their health, safety, or well-being at

risk. Agency experts carefully examined these hazards and

considered various alternative approaches to address them.

They sought input and guidance from businesses, consumer

organizations, outside scientific and legal experts, and the

public at

large, and ultimately developed final rules, explaining

publicly the basis and rationale for the adopted approach.

The federal law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

already permits a regulation carefully developed over many

years to be erased by Congress, in a rushed process that does

not reflect the same level of expertise or careful

consideration. Congress could even rescind a rule for reasons

that might be based not on any broader interests of the

public, but on the narrower, private special interests of

those seeking to avoid having appropriate obligations imposed

on their profit-making activities.

The potential for the CRA to be employed in the service of

special interests is at least somewhat held in check by the

fact that the law currently requires separate congressional

action for erasing each regulation. A regulation considered

for erasure under the CRA must be brought to the House and

Senate in its own separate resolution, given its own debate

and vote, and sent to the President for its own signature or

veto. All officials involved in considering whether to erase

the regulation and its protections are thus put on record,

and can be held accountable for their positions and the

consequences. Perhaps for this reason, there has only been

one regulation rescinded under the CRA in its 20-year

history.

This important accountability check would be removed under

the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' By allowing erasure of

multiple regulations en bloc, this bill would enable Members

of Congress and the President to evade public accountability

for what Gould be ill-considered, politically motivated

decisions that result in devastating consequences. Under the

bill, no Member would ever have to be on record regarding any

specific regulation being erased. In fact, any Member who

actually wants to cast a more selective vote, to erase

certain regulations but not others, would be unable to do so.

We are somewhat encouraged that the House Majority, after

initially acting behind closed doors to weaken the Office of

Congressional Ethics, has reversed course in light of major

concerns raised about the impact on congressional

accountability. We urge all Members to also recognize the

damaging effects that this bill would have on accountability

and on the ability of the American public to trust their

elected representatives. We strongly urge you to vote no on

the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.''

Sincerely,

Laura MacCleery,

Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization Consumer

Reports.

George P. Slover,

Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.

William C. Wallace,

Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior colleague, to speak on the measure before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California for pointing out how innocent this measure is, and I am astounded by his feeling that regulations shouldn't be examined one by one. Under this measure, 61 regulations could be considered en bloc. To me, just trying to put together two regulations to revoke them would be very, very hard to handle.

What we are talking about here is a bill that would provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block critical lifesaving regulations, and I want to say I have never had so much opposition to a bill brought to my attention before. 150 environmental organizations, consumer organizations, and labor organizations have urged the Members of this body to oppose H.R. 21. It is incredible. And then not only are workers and consumers against this measure as well as environmentalists, businesspeople are against it as well.

I feel like there is some missing part to this thing. The American Sustainable Business Council has over 200,000 businesses. So here is labor and commerce combined, urging Congress not to do this on the second day of a new Congress with all the challenges that are before us, and he says it wouldn't create any problems. It would be okay to put in 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 60. This is incredible. It is not that we are working so hard that we don't have time to examine each one on a particular basis.

Can you imagine this Congress trying to block regulations which would be offered in one bill that could be over 60 different regulations? I mean, it is unthinkable. It is not very practical at all.

When we talk about meat labeling regulations and then in another paragraph or another section there would be standards for school lunch nutrition, they would be combined. My friend from California would say, well, that is no problem. We will take them separately, but they will all come in the same package.

So if you wanted to examine all of these things individually, we could have an instance where the whole Congress could be consumed for weeks or for months trying to figure out why they should block all of these important and sensible safeguards.

Business and labor are joined with us, and, to me, it is beyond comprehension for us to be concerned about not taking them up one at a time. This is worse than a conservative point of view, which I haven't found myself often agreeing with. But just to say let's have unlimited numbers of these blocking provisions all into one is beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who, up until recently, was a very active member of the House Judiciary Committee. He is now the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a CRS Report that highlights the fact that it would be permissible under this proposed bill that as many as 61 regulations could be bundled into one package and blocked by this bill.

Congressional Research Service,

January 3, 2017.

Memorandum

Subject: ``Major'' Obama Administration Rules Potentially

Eligible to be Overturned under the Congressional Review

Act in the 115th Congress.

From: Maeve P. Carey, Specialist in Government Organization

and Management; Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress

and the Legislative Process; Casey Burgat, Research

Assistant.

This memorandum lists ``major'' rules issued by federal

agencies under the Barack Obama Administration that are

potentially subject to consideration under the procedures of

the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in the 115th Congress.

This is an updated version of a general distribution

memorandum released by CRS on November 17, 2016, and

previously updated on December 6, 2016.

Background on the Congressional Review Act

The CRA is a tool that Congress may use to overturn a rule

issued by a federal agency, including, in some cases, rules

issued in a previous session of Congress and by a previous

President. The CRA requires agencies to report on their

rulemaking activities to Congress and provides Congress with

a special set of procedures under which to consider

legislation to overturn those rules. The CRA, which was

enacted in 1996, was largely intended to assert control over

agency rulemaking by establishing a special set of expedited

or ``fast track'' legislative procedures for this purpose,

primarily in the Senate.

Of the approximately 73,000 final rules that have been

submitted to Congress since the legislation was enacted in

1996, the CRA has been used to disapprove one rule: the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration's November 2000

final rule on ergonomics, which was overturned using the CRA

in March 2001. The primary reason the CRA has overturned one

rule in the 20 years since its enactment is that under most

circumstances, it is likely that a President would veto such

a resolution in order to protect rules developed under his

own administration, and it may also be difficult for Congress

to muster the two-thirds vote in both houses needed to

overturn the veto. However, under a specific set of

circumstances--a turnover in party control of the White

House, particularly a turnover in which the incoming

President shares a party affiliation with a majority in both

houses of Congress--the CRA is more likely to be used

successfully. The March 2001 rejection of the ergonomics rule

was the result of that set of circumstances. Similar

circumstances will take place in 2017 after the start of the

115th Congress and after President-elect Donald J. Trump is

sworn into office.

CRA ``Reset'' Mechanism

Section 801(d) of the CRA provides that, if Congress

adjourns its annual session sine die less than 60 legislative

days in the House of Representatives or 60 session days in

the Senate after a rule is submitted to it, then the periods

to submit and act on a disapproval resolution ``reset'' in

their entirety in the next session of Congress'' The purpose

of this provision is to ensure that both houses of Congress

have sufficient time to consider disapproving rules submitted

during this end-of-session ``carryover period.'' This

provision applies in every session of Congress, but it is of

particular relevance in sessions of Congress that coincide

with presidential transitions. This provision allows, for a

limited time period, a new Congress to consider a joint

resolution disapproving a rule issued late in the previous

administration. If introduced and considered at the proper

time, such a joint resolution cannot be filibustered in the

Senate.

The projected second-session meeting schedules of the House

and Senate issued by each chamber's majority leader may be

used to estimate the date in 2016 after which final rules

submitted to Congress will be subject to the renewed review

periods in 2017 described above. The estimated start of the

reset period for all rules was determined by counting back

from the projected sine die adjournment in the respective

chambers--60 days of session in the Senate and 60 legislative

days in the House--then taking the earlier of the two dates.

Under this calculation, CRS estimates that agency final

rules submitted to Congress on or after June 13, 2016, will

be subject to renewed review periods in 2017 by a new

President and a new Congress. CRS day count estimates are

unofficial and non-binding; the House and Senate

Parliamentarians are the sole definitive arbiters of the

operation of the CRA mechanism and should be consulted if a

formal opinion is desired.

``Major'' Obama Administration Rules Potentially Eligible for

Consideration under the CRA in 2017

Using this estimated reset date of June 13, 2016, CRS

compiled a list of major rules that would fall under this

reset period--i.e., rules that could be overturned in the

115th Congress using the CRA.

Table 1 lists the major rules CRS has identified as of

January 3, 2017, that could be eligible for the reset

mechanism. To identify these rules, CRS used a two-step

process. First, CRS consulted the Government Accountability

Office's (GAO's) federal rules database to identify major

rules that were issued during calendar year 2016 and posted

on GAO's website as of January 3, 2017. Second, CRS used

LIS's ``Executive Communications'' database to identify when

these rules were received in Congress.

Major Rules Issued by the Obama Administration That Are Potentially

Eligible for Disapproval Under the Congressional Review Act in the

115th Congress

major rules listed on gao's website as of january 3, 2017

Title of Rule (As Published in Federal Register) and RIN

Numbers are as follows:

Exemptions To Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities

Offerings, 3235-AL80; Investment Company Liquidity Risk

Management Programs, 3235-AL61; Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and

EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting

High-Skilled NonImmigrant Workers, 1615-ACO5; Walking-Working

Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection

Systems), 1216-AB80; Waste Prevention, Production Subject to

Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 1004-AE14; Investment

Company Swing Pricing, 3235-AL61; Establishing a More

Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair

Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of

the Current 50th Percentile FMRs, 2501-AD74; Medicare

Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician

Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017;

Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare

Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release;

Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion

of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare

Shared Savings Program Requirements, 0938-AS81.

Medicare Program; CY 2017 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and

Hospital and Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts,

0938-AS70; Medicare Program; Medicare Part B Monthly

Actuarial Rates, Premium Rate,

and Annual Deductible Beginning January 1, 2017, 0938-AS72;

Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory

Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting

Programs; Organ Procurement Organization Reporting and

Communication; Transplant Outcome Measures and Documentation

Requirements; Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive

Programs; Payment to Nonexcepted Off-Campus Provider-Based

Department of a Hospital; Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

(VBP) Program; Establishment of Payment Rates Under the

Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Nonexcepted Items and

Services Furnished by an Off-Campus Provider-Based Department

of a Hospital, 0938-AS82; Medicare Program; Merit-Based

Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model

(APM) Incentive Under the Physician Fee Schedule, and

Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models, 0938-AS69;

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2017 Home Health

Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-

Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting

Requirements, 0938-AS80; Student Assistance General

Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family

Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan

Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and

Higher Education Grant Program, 1840-AD19; Energy

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, 1904-AC51.

Medicaid Program; Final FY 2014 and Preliminary FY 2016

Disproportionate Share Hospital Allotments, and Final FY 2014

and Preliminary FY 2016 Institutions for Mental Diseases

Disproportionate Share Hospital Limits, 0938-ZB30; Cross-

State Air Pollution Rule Update For The 2008 Ozone NAAQS,

2060-AS05; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency

Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--

Phase 2, 2060-AS16; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Fee Schedule, 1615-AC09; Treatment of Certain Interests in

Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness, 1545-BN40;

Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS),

1651-ABO8; ONC Health IT Certification Program: Enhanced

Oversight and Accountability, 0955-AA00; Clearing Requirement

Determination Under Section 2(H) of the Commodity Exchange

Act For Interest Rate Swaps, 3038-AE20; Standards For Covered

Clearing Agencies, 3235-AL48.

Medicare and Medicaid Programs, Reform of Requirements for

Long-Term Care Facilities, 0938-AR61; Child Care And

Development Fund (CCDF) Program, 0970-AC67; Establishing Paid

Sick Leave For Federal Contractors, 1235-AA13; OCC Guidelines

Establishing Standards For Recovery Planning By Certain Large

Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations,

And Insured Federal Branches; Technical Amendments, 1557-

AD96; Emergency Preparedness Requirements For Medicare And

Medicaid Participating Providers And Suppliers, 0938-A091;

Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations On Certain Federal Indian

Reservations And Ceded Lands For The 2016-17 Season, 1018-

BA70; Safety And Effectiveness Of Consumer Antiseptics;

Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products For Over-The-Counter-

Human Use, 0910-AF69; Head Start Performance Standards, 0970-

AC63; Standards Of Performance For Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills, 2060-AMO8; Emission Guidelines And Compliance

Times For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 2060-AS23.

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Fair Pay And Safe

Workplaces, 9000-AM81; Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient

Prospective Payment Systems For Acute Care Hospitals And The

Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System & Policy

Changes & Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting

Requirements For Specific Providers; Graduate Medical

Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable To

Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; Technical

Changes Relating To Costs To Organizations & Medicare Cost

Reports; Finalization Of Interim Final Rules With Comment

Period On LTCH PPS Payments For Severe Wounds, Modifications

Of Limitations On Redesignation By The Medicare Geographic

Classification Review Board, & Extensions Of Payments To MDHS

And Low-Volume Hospitals, 0938-A577; 0938-A588; 0938-AS41;

Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act; Joint Rule For

Unified And Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability,

And The One-Stop System Joint Provisions; Final Rule, 1205-

AB74; Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act, 1205-AB73;

Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System And Consolidated

Billing For Skilled Nursing Facilities For FY 2017, SNF

Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting

Program, And SNF Payment Models Research, 0938-AS75.

Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility

Prospective Payment System For Federal Fiscal Year 2017,

0938-AS78; Medicare Program; FF 2017 Hospice Wage Index And

Payment Rate Update And Hospice Quality Reporting

Requirements, 0938-AS79; Margin And Capital Requirements For

Covered Swap Entities, 3052-AC69; Medicare Program; FY 2017

Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System--

Rate Update, 0938-AS76; National School Lunch Program And

School Breakfast Program. Nutrition Standards For All Foods

Sold In School As Required By The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids

Act Of 2010, 0584-AE09; Revised Critical Infrastructure

Protection Reliability Standards No RIN provided; Amendments

To The Commission's Rules Of Practice, 3235-AL87; Disclosure

Of Payments By Resource Extraction Issuers, 3235-AL53;

Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons And Bag And Possession Limits

For Certain Migratory Game Birds, 1018-BA70; Oil And Gas And

Sulfur Operations On The Outer Continental Shelf--

Requirements For Exploratory Drilling On The Arctic Outer

Continental Shelf, 1082-AA00.

Medication Assisted Treatment For Opioid Use Disorders,

0930-AA22; Department Of Labor Federal Civil Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act Catch-Up Adjustments, 1290-AA31;

General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk

Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance

Regulations; And The Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic

Provisions, 0563-AC49; Transition Assistance Program (TAP)

For Military Personnel, 0790-AJ17; Operation And

Certification Of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AJ60;

Transit Asset Management, National Transit Database; FTA-

2014-0020, 092132-ABO7; Revision Of Fee Schedules; Fee

Recovery For Fiscal Year 2016, 3150-AJ66; Medicare Program;

Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System,

0938-AS33; James Zadroga 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

Reauthorization Act, 1105-AB49; Energy Conservation Program:

Energy Conservation Standards For Battery Chargers, 1904-

AB57; Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation

Standards For Dehumidifiers, 1904-AC81; Removal Of Mandatory

Country Of Origin Labeling Requirements For Beef And Pork

Muscle Cuts, Ground Beef, And Ground Pork, 0581-AD29.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

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

Mr. Speaker, floor debate is both for the people in the room and the people watching.

Many of the new Members have not yet voted on a substantive piece of legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I reach out with a little piece of history--a large piece of history, perhaps--for the freshmen of both parties.

First of all, this legislation is bipartisan. It is sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.

Second of all, when Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and I were 16 years younger, in March of 2001, it was the last and only time that the underlying law allowed for a regulation to be repealed. It was prominently called ergonomics. It was repealed. I had the honor of voting for that as a freshman.

Since that time, in spite of the many regulations that some people don't like in one party or another, we have not seen fit to have a joint resolution repeal a regulation.

So let's talk about what it takes to do that. It takes both Houses of the Congress and the President of the United States to repeal a regulation created by a bureaucrat, or many bureaucrats--a regulation that may or may not be consistent with the law passed by this body, by the Senate, and by a President in this or a previous Congress.

Again, for the freshmen, we are the body that creates laws, and we do so through a complex and difficult procedure. We pass it out of the House or Senate. We then pass it out of the other body. If the President signs it, it then still is subject to court challenge.

Now, let's go through the regulatory process: Proposed by a bureaucrat, given a period of time in which dissenters may be 100 percent, and still it becomes law if this body does not act. So now that gives you a little feel for the underlying law. Used once on a bipartisan basis to take back an unpopular regulation that has never been resubmitted under both 8 years of a Republican and 8 years of a Democrat in the White House, and I repeat, the regulation that was previously recalled was so in error that it has never been redone in 16 years by two Presidents.

Now, let's talk about the bill we have before us today. We all know that the House is a body that, when it wants to, can move fairly quickly, and the Senate is a body that seemingly moves quickly only in recess. The fact is that the Senate takes a long time, and we have many regulations that may or may not be considered now or in the future.

All this legislation does is allow for us to dispose of one or more regulations in an expedited fashion in this body and have it seen in the same form in the Senate. Nothing more than that. It doesn't change the underlying law. It doesn't change the fact that the House, the Senate, and a President must concur on taking back what is essentially a law--that is what a regulation is--created by bureaucrats not elected by any of us. So let's keep it as simple as that.

For the freshmen of either party, when you go to make a vote on this, remember, we are not changing the underlying law. Only one regulation under the underlying law has ever been repealed, and it was bipartisan in both the House and the Senate when it was repealed. It has been 16 years, and the few that will likely be considered under this act and the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few regulations that are believed to be unnecessary and for which the House, the Senate, and the President concur.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute of my time to the gentleman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I won't be long. There is nothing mundane about what we are doing here. Every day in America, Congress passes a law maybe, but every working day in America, the bureaucracy passes regulations. The fact is, the American people know that the so-called regulatory state that has developed during the last half century means that, whether Congress is in session or not, new laws are being created, new rules that cause people in real America, working people and their companies, to have to figure out what new hurdle they have to jump over just to earn a living.

That is what we are talking about here, that at least when those are grossly exceeded under the underlying law and intention of Congress, Congress--the House, the Senate--in concert with the President, may, in fact, use the same tool, essentially the making of law, in this case to rescind to law.

I just want to again speak to the younger Members who may not know the history of this. All we are really talking about here in this act is, in fact, a law created to take away a regulation. What we are going to vote on will allow for, one, two, half a dozen regulations, if there were that many that we think are wrong, through our normal lawmaking process, in many ways, to be rescinded. The House has to vote a majority, the Senate has to vote a majority, and the President has to sign it. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between that and any other legislative business that we do here.

Now, I have worked with John Conyers both as a minority member and as my chairman. He is a good man. In this case, I believe that if he looked more broadly at the question of Congress' responsibility to review laws made outside of this body that he would support me. Notwithstanding not getting his support in this case, we do have both Republicans and Democrats on this bill. I expect that on the vote, in both the House and the Senate, it will be bipartisan, and any piece of regulatory law that would come before this body and the Senate, I am confident, would have bipartisan support in order to rescind a bad regulation.

So I think for those who are concerned about the regulations somehow running amok, no regulation will be rescinded under this law any different than any normal piece of legislation passed out of the House and the Senate and signed by the President.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My colleague from Tennessee has been a good friend on many issues. I know he is passionate about regulations and laws that he would like to have passed, and so am I.

All of us in Congress have seen that it is extremely easy--the longer you are here, the more you will see it--it is extremely easy to stop something here. The same is true about those 61 or so regulations. Any combining of regulations, unless they are overwhelmingly disapproved, actually makes them harder to pass. We are not going to put 61 pieces of legislation, each of which has at least one or two or three or a dozen Republicans who vehemently oppose that regulation being rescinded. The fact is it is only the worst of the worst that are going to be stayed through this process and then reevaluated by the new administration.

I will mention, though, for my colleagues on the other side of this debate today, that we do appropriations every year. The American people, and for the freshmen who haven't voted on appropriations yet, think of appropriations as somehow different than the law. It really isn't. Appropriation is simply a law that provides funding.

Every appropriation bill during the entire nearly 8 years of President Obama has been some form of a continuing resolution or an omnibus. But as my colleague from Tennessee knows, every one of those has had dozens to hundreds of laws attached to them. We call them riders. We have terms for them. The fact is that a single appropriations bill, often done just before the end of funding of the government, always--always--has dozens, if not hundreds, of laws attached to it.

So the idea that we don't group together things which are relatively noncontroversial, that will cause someone to still vote for the bill in spite of it being in there, would be to be dishonest to the freshmen who need to know that we do for efficiency bring together things that we can pass en bloc, and we do it all the time--and even major legislation. I dare say, the Affordable Care Act and others are, in fact, multiple pieces of legislation put together in one package.

So lest our freshmen who are about to take their first vote on a piece of legislation--or one that could have a major impact-- misunderstand, bringing together multiple pieces into one bill is common, but it is always done in order to gain votes or to maintain votes. In fact, you do it at your folly if you lose votes.

I would say to my friend and colleague from Michigan that there is no likelihood that 61 pieces of regulation will be put together because there is no chance that there would be 61 pieces that even all Republicans would agree should be revoked. I would imagine the number would be less. I suspect that if my bill said 2 or 5 or 10, it would still be opposed for the same reason, which is that it creates inefficiency if there are multiple generally agreed bad pieces of legislation that need to be considered.

Lastly, and I am not closing, but I think this may be one of my closing remarks, for freshmen to understand, this isn't even about the House. We have the procedures in the House where we could put these together. This is about the Senate that can take 60 hours, 60 legislative hours or more, to do one piece of legislation. We know that the Senate has confirmations to do of judges and appointees for the Cabinet, and they have other legislative work, and we cannot afford to have them backed up now or in the future if there are multiple regulations that need to be rescinded.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentlewoman from Florida, I am sure, is well intended, but there is nothing more transparent than calling up to the floor of this House and debating the removal of regulations that have been found to be excessive or extreme or simply not consistent with the law. That is a transparent process. The term ``regular order,'' in fact, could not be more appropriate to that process. We passed a law nearly three Presidents ago, if you will, that simply called for this procedure.

All I am saying is we should not be mired down, if there are five or six or eight bad regulations, in not combining them together for purposes of getting them disposed of in a timely fashion. I might suggest to everyone that they remember that many of us did not support the regulation change yesterday as to the ethics oversight, because we do believe in transparency and will continue to believe in transparency.

Again, nothing is more transparent than bringing to the House floor the debate about something that is believed to have been wrong done by unelected bureaucrats. ``Bureaucrat'' is not a dirty word, but ``unelected'' fits this process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

I served on the Small Business Committee with Ms. Velazquez a long time ago. One thing that we all know is, with regard to that committee, the NFIB--the National Federation of Independent Business--and small business groups alike are something we look at, even NAM--the National Association of Manufacturers--and, of course, the Chamber. All of those organizations support this legislation. They have written letters in support, and I include in the Record those letters.

The following is a list of supporters of H.R. 21, the

Midnight Rules Relief Act:

American Action Forum, American Center for Law and Justice,

American Commitment, American Energy Alliance, American Fuel

and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity--

Key Vote, Americans for Tax Reform, Associated Builders and

Contractors, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Concerned

Women for America.

Family Business Coalition, FreedomWorks, Heating Air-

conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International

(HARDI), International Franchise Association, Let Freedom

Ring, National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED),

National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation

for Independent Business, R Street Institute, SBE Council,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are hearing many people talk about important regulations and of their somehow being taken out. Let's understand that regulations can go both ways. These changes and the underlying law can also protect the other way. The fact is now we are in the future. You could have an administration that, in its final days, changes regulations to make them more lenient to large businesses, more lenient to polluters, more lenient to the employers to the detriment of their employees. Regulations can go both ways, and only the most extreme regulations--literally one since the enactment of the underlying legislation--has ever been repealed.

I don't want to belittle my own legislation, but let's understand that there won't be 61 en bloc being brought. There will be some, I hope, and there may be more than one. Yet for Congress to take back, piece by piece, its responsibility and then live up to that responsibility should be all of our goals.

Now, this legislation was limited to midnight rules. Let's understand that midnight rules are the rules done in the waning days of an administration--7-plus years into this administration--and many of these rules, in fact, were enacted after the last vote of the people. I think it is important to understand that, on election day, the American people delivered a resounding message to Washington: stop the regulatory, Big Government onslaught that is killing jobs.

One of my colleagues earlier spoke of the fact that we had had so many jobs--15 million jobs--created in the last 8 years. The percentage of the workforce that is working in America today is the smallest in my lifetime. It is smaller than it was 8 years ago, 16 years ago, or 21 years ago. We are not creating jobs at the rate of our population. We should not have some sort of an accolade for regulations having created a great economy if, in fact, that economy has grown less than 2 percent a year and has not kept up with any historic 8-year period. To me, that is an important part. Although the discussion I just had was about more than regulations, let's understand that the growth of regulations--of lawmaking--is certainly not the creator of jobs.

I think, when we look at the cost--and that is a lot of what we are dealing with in the manager's amendment in this bill--we are dealing with the recognition that we are looking at regulations in light of how much they cost. Now, that cost is based on independent scoring. It is not the administration's scoring and it is not my scoring. It is that of the Congressional Budget Office's, an independent agency that doesn't always give a score I want, but the score is not arrived through partisan activities.

I reach out again to the Members who may not yet know that what we are asking is simply to assert our normal ability in Congress and put together one or more ideas for the efficiency of the body, to send it from here to the Senate, and from the Senate to the President. What we are proposing in this legislation as a small change to the underlying legislation that has been with us for three Presidents is, in fact, consistent with this body's doing its job, in regular order, in the clear light of day.

I think the important message for this piece of bipartisan legislation is: we are taking back a limited amount of our capability, trying to streamline it, and giving the President an opportunity to accept or reject a piece of legislation voted on by a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate before it gets to the President. The President, if he feels we have included even one regulation inappropriately that he would like to retain, would veto our bill.

Lastly, I beg everyone to look at this for what it is, not for what others say it is, because it is simply Congress doing its job in an efficient fashion and consistent with 20-plus years of history and with there being only one piece--one time--when a regulation was withdrawn. No President since that time has tried to produce or has asked Congress to pass a law so as to put into effect a regulation that, on a bipartisan basis, the House, the Senate, and a President thought should go. I urge the support for this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember Chairman Ed Towns who used to say when someone ran on: The gentleman's time has long expired. I think we might have that situation here, but I am going to give the gentlewoman from Florida a moment more in just a moment.

The motion to recommit specifically sends it back to the committee. That is not necessary. The fact is that if she wanted these changes and wanted them enacted immediately there is a procedure to do so.

So I rise in opposition because this is certainly something that would delay, would send this back to committee, and cause it to come back again.

I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a question, if she wouldn't mind: Is there a regulation in those 61 that would be affected by this that would affect any of the provisions that you cited in your amendment?

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman answer the question. Is there 61, according to the ranking member, pieces of regulation that

could be in the window? I just wondered if you had one regulation by the Obama administration that concerned any of these issues that you had in the act.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask that the gentlewoman, if there are some, place them in the Record. I don't know of any in the 61 that were granted, let's say, after June.

What I will say is that the reason I will be voting and urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit is not the regulations that she alludes to but, in fact, the fact that this would kill the bill by sending it back and having it delayed further.

So, in order to pass it today, because she did not set it up to exclude these items and have them immediately considered, I cannot support her motion to recommit.

What I will say is that when we look at regulations to put into a package that may be a package of one or a package, if this passes, of more than one, I certainly will expect that those regulations will have to do with things which could have been done sooner, would have been done sooner, and were done in the waning days of the administration for no reason that was time sensitive.

The Affordable Care Act was passed in the first days of the administration. If there is something in the last days of the administration that has merit, I certainly would urge my colleagues not

to rescind that regulation. But if there is something that should have been done in year one, two, three, four, five, or six, I would ask why it wasn't done then.

Having said that, it is unfortunate that this motion to recommit was written in a way that would send it back to committee and, thus, cause a substantial delay.

I would caution my colleagues that, at least from this Member, if you have a motion to recommit and you want the amendment itself considered, make it one that is immediate and not back to committee. The difference, I think, is important. The Parliamentarian simply can advise on how to write one that would prevent it having to get, if you will, another delay of days or weeks.

I urge opposition to the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' Midnight Rules Relief Act.

The bill is an unnecessary abdication of legislative responsibility by the Republican-led Congress, and it is very poor public policy. The bill short-circuits open debate and public participation. It is also very wasteful because it jettisons carefully and long-crafted policies that protect American families from threats to their economic security, their health, and their safety.

Under the U.S. Constitution, after Congress passes a law, agencies craft rules to implement that legislation. If Members of Congress want to clarify or change executive branch regulations, they have a responsibility to address the matter in a transparent way and through open, regular order. Republicans don't want to do that, however,

because the public might find out what they are doing.

This Republican scheme sets a dangerous precedent by expanding the ability of the Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove hundreds of carefully crafted policies at one time and with very little notice or debate. Republicans want to reach back to last May and cherry-pick policies that they do not agree with.

But how will the public know?

That will be difficult; and, in many instances, Republicans do not want the public to know.

I urge my colleagues to reject this power grab by the new Republican Congress. It is just like what they tried to do yesterday with the Office of Congressional Ethics. These policies don't just come out of thin air. There is a long, painstaking process with extensive public comment. Public participation doesn't appear to be a priority in this new Congress, so reject this dark bill. Side, instead, with our democratic principles in America, which include open debate, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and the security of our neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

My amendment provides an important safeguard for the economic security of American families by maintaining the consumer-friendly protections in the Affordable Care Act for, one, the cost-saving provisions in Medicare of lower prescription drugs for our parents and our grandparents; and, two, the vital consumer protection that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because someone has a preexisting condition like cancer, asthma, or diabetes.

The Affordable Care Act, which Republicans say they want to repeal without a replacement bill in sight, provided these very important consumer protections for all Americans not just for the 20 million Americans who gained health insurance through the marketplace or HealthCare.gov, but for the vast majority of Americans who are covered through Medicare, which is about 43 million Americans, and for the folks who have health insurance through their jobs, which is about 155 million Americans.

Here is what the Affordable Care Act has done for those folks: One, Medicare is stronger. The Affordable Care Act strengthened the Medicare fund, extending its life by over a decade. In addition, Medicare enrollees have benefited from huge savings in prescription drug costs. They have also saved through preventative screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes; that when they go to the doctor's office now, there is no cost, there is no charge. That is the Affordable Care Act.

So if Republicans aren't careful in their zeal to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they, in essence, will be asking our parents and grandparents to pay more, a whole lot more for their prescription drugs.

Let me get a little local here. I represent the State of Florida where about 18 percent of Floridians rely on Medicare for their health care. Because of the Affordable Care Act, it has started to close the doughnut hole. Repeal it now and that stops. That goes away. Just in 2015 alone, 350,000 Florida seniors saved $351 million on their prescription drugs. That is an average of about $1,000 per beneficiary. So my amendment makes the point that Democrats are going to fight for our older neighbors to keep those savings intact, brought to you by the Affordable Care Act.

Second, we also want to put everyone on notice that Democrats intend to fight tooth and nail to keep the vital consumer protection, one of the bedrocks of the Affordable Care Act, that bars health insurance companies from refusing to cover you or charge you more because you have a preexisting condition or charge women more than men.

Whether you know it or not, all Americans have benefited from the bar on discrimination from preexisting conditions since January 1, 2014. So if you have health insurance through your employer, you have benefited from the Affordable Care Act. If you have gone to healthcare.gov because you are a student, part-time worker, or you don't have it through your job, you have benefited. If you have health insurance for your children through the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid, you are no longer subject to discrimination.

Remember a few years ago when insurance companies maintained a long list of conditions where they said, if you have cancer or diabetes or something, you are automatically excluded, that is the way things worked. A congressional investigation into this practice during the healthcare reform debate uncovered more than 400 medical diagnoses or conditions that insurance used to justify coverage denial. At the top of the list were cancer, heart disease, pregnancy, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and muscular dystrophy.

You know what? Generally, States with the highest rates of denial were in the South and the Midwest where the overall health status of residents has consistently been worse than in other parts of the country. The incidence of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes is higher in those States.

Well, now you cannot be discriminated against for those preexisting conditions. That kind of discrimination wasn't right. It had no place in America, so we outlawed it in the Affordable Care Act. Like one of my neighbors, Christine Roper in Tampa--Christine is 26. She recently aged off her father's insurance and was unsure how to find coverage because she has a heart condition and asthma. Before, she would have been prohibited from getting health insurance, but not today. And we are not going backwards. That is because millions of Americans who can now buy coverage would be forced back into the ranks of the uninsured.

We are going to start this Congress off by standing up for our families and rejecting any attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Well, according to the Midnight Rules Relief Act, the public really won't know, and that is the point.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In fact, there are extensive regulations listed as major rules relating to Medicare because part of what we did in the Affordable Care Act was to begin to change Medicare from a volume-based system to a value-based system.

Major Rules Issued by the Obama Administration That Are Potentially

Eligible for Disapproval Under the Congressional Review Act in the

115th Congress

Major Rules Listed on GAO's Website As of January 3, 2017

Title of Rule (As Published in Federal Register) and RIN

Number are as follows:

Exemptions To Facilitate Intrastate and Regional Securities

Offerings 3235-AL80; Investment Company Liquidity Risk

Management Programs, 3235-AL61; Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and

EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting

High Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 1615-ACO5; Walking-Working

Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection

Systems), 1216-AB80; Waste Prevention, Production Subject to

Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 1004-AE14; Investment

Company Swing Pricing, 3235-AL61; Establishing a More

Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair

Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of

the Current 50th Percentile FMRs, 2501-AD74; Medicare

Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician

Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017;

Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare

Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release;

Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion

of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare

Shared Savings Program Requirements, 0938-AS81.

Medicare Program; CY 2017 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and

Hospital and Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts,

0938-AS70; Medicare Program; Medicare Part B Monthly

Actuarial Rates, Premium Rate, and Annual Deductible

Beginning January 1, 2017, 0938-AS72; Hospital Outpatient

Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment

Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; Organ Procurement

Organization Reporting and Communication; Transplant Outcome

Measures and Documentation Requirements; Electronic Health

Record (EHR) Incentive Programs; Payment to Nonexcepted Off-

Campus Provider-Based Department of a Hospital; Hospital

Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program; Establishment of

Payment Rates Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for

Nonexcepted Items and Services Furnished by an Off-Campus

Provider-Based Department of a Hospital, 0938-AS82; Medicare

Program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and

Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive Under the Physician

Fee Schedule, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment

Models, 0938-AS69; Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2017

Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home

Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality

Reporting Requirements, 0938-AS80; Student Assistance General

Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family

Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan

Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and

Higher Education Grant Program, 1840-AD19; Energy

Conservation Program, Energy Conservation Standards for

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, 1904-AC51.

Medicaid Program; Final FY 2014 and Preliminary FY 2016

Disproportionate Share Hospital, Allotments, and Final FY

2014 and Preliminary FY 2016 Institutions for Mental

Diseases, Disproportionate Share Hospital Limits, 0938-ZB30;

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update For The 2008 Ozone

NAAQS, 2060-AS05; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel

Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and

vehicles--Phase 2, 2060-AS16; U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services Fee Schedule, 1615-AC09; Treatment of

Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness,

1545-BN40; Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System

(EVUS), 1651-AB08; ONC Health IT Certification Program:

Enhanced Oversight and Accountability, 0955-AA00; Cleaning

Requirement Determination Under Section 2(H) Of The Commodity

Exchange Act For Interest Rate Swaps, 3038-AE20; Standards

For Covered Clearing Agencies, 3235-AL48.

Medicare And Medicaid Programs; Reform Of Requirements For

Long-Term Care Facilities, 0938-AR61; Child Care And

Development Fund (CCDF) Program, 0970-AC67; Establishing Paid

Sick Leave For Federal Contractors, 1235-AAI3; OCC Guidelines

Establishing Standards For Recovery Planning By Certain Large

Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations,

And Insured Federal Branches; Technical Amendments, 1557-

AD96; Emergency Preparedness Requirements For Medicare And

Medicaid Participating Providers And Suppliers, 0938-A091;

Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations On Certain Federal Indian

Reservations And Ceded Lands For The 2016-17 Season, 1018-

BA70; Safety And Effectiveness Of Consumer Antiseptics;

Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products For Over-The-Counter-

Human Use, 0910-AF69; Head Start Performance Standards, 0970-

AC63; Standards Of Performance For Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills, 2060-AM08; Emission Guidelines And Compliance

Times For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 2060-AS23.

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Fair Pay And Safe

Workplaces, 9000-AM81; Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient

Prospective Payment Systems For Acute Care Hospitals And The

Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System & Policy

Changes & Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting

Requirements For Specific Providers; Graduate Medical

Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable To

Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; Technical

Changes Relating To Costs To Organizations & Medicare Cost

Reports; Finalization Of Interim Final Rules With Comment

Period On LTCH PPS Payments For Severe Wounds, Modifications

Of Limitations On Redesignation By The Medicare Geographic

Classification Review Board, & Extensions Of Payments To MDHS

And Low-Volume Hospitals, 0938-AS77; 0938-AS88; 0938-AS41;

Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act; Joint Rule For

Unified And Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability,

And The One-Stop System Joint Provisions; Final Rule, 1205-

AB74; Workforce Innovation And Opportunity Act, 1205-AB73;

Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System And Consolidated

Billing For Skilled Nursing Facilities For FY 2017, SNF

Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting

Program, And SNF Payment Models Research, 0938-AS75.

Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility

Prospective Payment System For Federal Fiscal Year 2017,

0938-AS78; Medicare Program; FF 2017 Hospice Wage Index And

Payment Rate Update And Hospice Quality Reporting

Requirements, 0938-AS79; Margin And Capital Requirements For

Covered Swap Entities, 3052-AC69; Medicare Program; FY 2017

Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System--

Rate Update, 0938-AS76; National School Lunch Program And

School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards For All Foods

Sold In School As Required By The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids

Act Of 2010, 0584-AE09; Revised Critical Infrastructure

Protection Reliability Standards, No RIN provided; Amendments

To The Commission's Rules Of Practice, 3235-AL87; Disclosure

Of Payments By Resource Extraction Issuers, 3235-AL53;

Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons And Bag And Possession Limits

For Certain Migratory Game Birds, 1018-BA70; Oil and Gas And

Sulfur Operations On The Outer Continental Shelf--

Requirements For Exploratory Drilling On The Arctic Outer

Continental Shelf, 1082-AA00.

Medication Assisted Treatment For Opioid Use Disorders,

0930-AA22; Department Of Labor Federal Civil Penalties

Inflation Adjustment Act Catch-Up Adjustments, 1290-AA31;

General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk

Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance

Regulations; And The Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic

Provisions, 0563-AC49; Transition Assistance Program (TAP)

For Military Personnel, 0790-AJ17; Operation And

Certification Of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2120-AJ60;

Transit Asset Management; National Transit Database; FTA-

2014-0020, 2132-AB07; Revision Of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery

For Fiscal Year 2016, 3150-AJ66; Medicare Program; Medicare

Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System, 0938-

AS33; Jams Zadroga 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

Reauthorization Act, 1105-AB49; Energy Conservation Program:

Energy Conservation Standards For Battery Chargers, Energy

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards For

Dehumidifiers, 1904-AC81; Removal Of Mandatory Country Of

Origin Labeling Requirements For Beef And Pork Muscle Cuts,

Ground Beef, And Ground Pork, 0581-AD29.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 21.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 21) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, Federal bureaucrats are continuously creating new and more complicated and costly burdens on hardworking Americans in the form of unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Clearly, some regulation is necessary to protect public safety, set general rules of the road, and accomplish other important goals.

However, despite the fact that these goals can often be accomplished with relatively simple guidance, Washington bureaucrats seem more determined than ever to create the most complicated puzzles they can imagine, regardless of the compliance costs for small businesses or the new and innovative products entrepreneurs are forced to shelve in order to comply with these overly complicated regulations.

Bureaucrats also don't seem to care that American families face higher prices for goods and have fewer job opportunities when employers are unnecessarily forced to factor wasteful costs of complying with overly burdensome regulations into their bottom lines.

That is why, at the very beginning of the 115th Congress, we are prioritizing legislation to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens. Doing so is one of the fundamental steps we can take to make America more competitive again

and put more Americans back to work again.

Today, our specific focus is on reforming regulations that are hastily cobbled together in the waning weeks and months of an outgoing administration. These regulations are particularly susceptible to abuse and, thus, have an even greater potential to undermine job opportunities, wages, and American competitiveness.

As the Obama administration rushes to a close, Americans' freedom and prosperity are increasingly threatened by one of the most abusive features of modern bureaucracy--midnight regulation.

Midnight regulation is one of the most vexing problems in Washington's overreaching regulatory system. Administration after administration, there is a spike in rulemaking activity during the last year of a President's term--particularly between election day and Inauguration Day, but even in the months before then.

These successive waves of midnight regulation present deeply troubling issues. First and foremost, because outgoing administrations are no longer accountable to the voters, they are much more prone to issue midnight regulations that fly in the face of the electoral mandate the voters just gave the new, incoming administration.

Waves of midnight rules can also be very hard for Congress or a new administration to check adequately. As a new Congress and President begin their terms, both understandably must be focused on implementing the new priorities within the mandates the voters have given them. That doesn't always leave time to focus on cleaning up all of the last acts of the departing administration.

In addition, the Congressional Review Act currently allows Congress to disapprove of regulations--including midnight regulations--only one at a time. A wave of midnight regulations can easily overwhelm Congress' ability to use one-rule-at-a-time resolutions as an effective check.

Finally, it is well-documented that the rush by outgoing administrations to impose midnight rules before the clock strikes 12 leads to more poorly analyzed rules with lower quality and lower benefits.

The Obama administration has imposed more runaway regulation than any other in memory, and its midnight rulemaking period is no exception. When the House considered this legislation in the wake of last November's election, the administration had issued or planned to issue at least 180 midnight rules within the scope of this bill, including multiple billion-dollar rules and more than 20 major rules imposing $100 million or more in costs per year.

In the intervening weeks, these figures have rapidly ballooned to the 226 midnight rules issued or planned. During just the week of December 12, the administration issued 18 midnight regulations, imposing over $2 billion in new costs. But this is not a partisan issue. Administrations of both parties have issued midnight rules in the past.

The Judiciary Committee has been searching for an effective solution to this problem for some time, and I applaud our colleague, Mr. Issa, for offering the Midnight Rules Relief Act to respond to the need. This bill offers a simple and powerful means to stop the problem of abusive midnight rules--allowing Congress to disapprove of any and all midnight regulations in one fell swoop by one en bloc disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act.

Any outgoing administration understanding that it has this Sword of Damocles hanging over its head will surely hesitate much more before abusing midnight rules. Further, once enabled to dispatch of all improper midnight rules with one simple resolution, Congress and succeeding administrations would be free to focus more of their energies on the voters' new priorities, rather than the mess left by midnight rules.

The relief offered by the bill, moreover, is highly flexible. No set number of regulations would have to be covered by a resolution. No category of regulation would have to be included in or excluded from a resolution. On the contrary, any midnight rule disapproval resolution could be sweeping or narrow, depending on how many rules merited inclusion.

Finally, the Midnight Rules Relief Act offers a solution that is not intrusive upon legitimate executive branch authority. An outgoing administration remains free to conduct necessary rulemaking activity up to the stroke of midnight on Inauguration Day. It then falls to Congress to respond swiftly and surgically to the results, to accept the good and excise the bad.

This is truly a better way to govern. That is why the reform embodied in this bill is featured in Speaker Ryan's Better Way agenda.

I thank Mr. Issa for his work on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, for the fourth time in the history of the House of Representatives, we will read aloud on the floor of the House the full text of the U.S. Constitution.

It is our hope that this reading will help demonstrate to the American people that the House of Representatives is dedicated to the Constitution and the system it establishes for limited government and the protection of individual liberty. We also hope that it will inspire many more Americans to read the Constitution themselves.

The text we will read today reflects the changes to the document made by the 27 amendments to it. Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read.

In order to ensure fairness to all those interested in participating, we have asked Members to line up to be recognized on a first-come, first-served basis. I will recognize Members based on this guidance. Each Member will approach the podium and read the passage laid out for him or her.

In order to ensure relative parity and fairness, I may recognize Members out of order in order to ensure bipartisanship and balance. Additionally, because of his long-term leadership on civil rights issues, I will recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Representative John Lewis, to read the Thirteenth Amendment.

I want to thank the Members of both parties for their participation in this historic event. I will begin by reading the preamble to the Constitution:

``We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I now yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I now yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Mr. ABRAHAM: Section 8:

``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .''

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas).

I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

I now yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I now yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

I now yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington and the majority conference chairman (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I now yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).