Ensuring Accountability in Agency Rulemaking Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

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

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is here in the Capitol today. The President of Ukraine left his war-torn country to come to the United States to plead for our help in repelling Putin's murderous and unlawful invasion, in protecting his people, and in preserving their democracy.

As he did so, Putin unleashed a devastating missile attack on Kyiv and was captured on video drinking champagne and toasting the downfall of Ukraine if its Western allies falter.

President Zelenskyy came here to ask the United States to stand tall and honor its commitment to an ally, its commitment to democracy, and its commitment to upholding international law. In response, the United States House of Representatives is debating the merits of chocolate milk.

We will not long remember the MAGA majority's great gas stove war of 2023 or their attempts to make it easier to kill the endangered lesser prairie-chicken, but the sad fact is, these bills have consumed weeks of precious floor time this year as the House majority struggles to pass any legislation of note.

The world will, however, remember if the United States fails to support Ukraine in its hour of need.

President Zelenskyy, our NATO allies, and the American people should expect better from this Congress. Under this extremist majority, they are doomed to disappointment, which again brings us here today to debate chocolate milk.

When I was home this past weekend, I had the chance to talk with many of

my constituents. I met with women small business owners to discuss their challenges. I talked to college students about their concerns regarding attacks on reproductive freedom here in the United States. I gathered with people in our community who have lost loved ones, neighbors, and friends to gun violence, and I listened to their calls for action on commonsense gun safety legislation.

Overwhelmingly, people came to talk to me about making our country a place where all Americans, all children, can thrive. That means bringing down the cost of healthcare, childcare, household energy, and high-speed internet so families can care for their kids, heat their homes, and stay connected. This means investing in infrastructure, good-paying jobs, and public education so we can strengthen our economy, lower costs, build safer communities, and create opportunities so everyone has a shot at a brighter future.

These are the things I came to Congress to do.

In these last legislative days of the year, these aren't the things that House Republicans are doing. I would call it unbelievable except we have seen the same story play out over and over again in this Chamber all year.

For months on end, MAGA extremists have dragged our country to the brink of default, nearly shut down the government twice, and even ousted their own Speaker. Pushed by the most extreme members of their Conference, they have brought chaos to the House floor. They have put up bills only for them to tank and have to be withdrawn as they fight among themselves. They spent 25 days just arguing over which one of them should be Speaker. This is all on the American people's dime.

Now, with pressing challenges at home and around the world, they are pushing a completely discredited impeachment inquiry and other naked political stunts, all to distract from their own inability to govern. They have done nothing to deliver for the American people, and Americans deserve better than this.

House Republicans refuse to get their act together. Today, they have brought to the floor two misguided and marginal bills that fail to address any of the major threats or concerns our country or our constituents face. Both bills open the door to the influence of more special interests in our government's functions.

I should note that, today, we were supposed to consider two additional bills impacting our national security and individual rights. Due to infighting among Republicans and their own committee chairs, these measures were pulled last night from the schedule, leaving us with another wasted day of chaos and incompetence.

The first bill we have today is H.R. 1147, which makes changes to school nutrition standards in a way that would undermine science and undo important progress made over the past 13 years.

Schools play an essential role in our kids' health. For so many children, the meals they get at school represent the majority of calories and the most nutritious meals they consume all day.

We saw this reality clearly during the first days of the pandemic when, as schools closed down, the prospect of missed school breakfasts and lunches threatened the health of children across America.

The meals served in schools are based on the most recent set of dietary guidelines as determined by child nutrition experts. These guidelines stay current and are updated at least every 5 years. In fact, in February of this year, the Biden-Harris administration began the latest update.

When I served on my local school board, and before as a Home and School president, I was involved in efforts to improve and implement what was at the time new Federal improved nutrition standards for our district's meals.

Through that experience, I know just how important nutritious meals are to helping students succeed and form lifelong healthy habits. We have seen immense benefits since Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act in 2010.

The research shows that the millions of children who participate in school meal programs have better overall diet quality than those who do not. Studies prove, despite arguments to the contrary, that students eat and enjoy these meals. When presented with healthy choices, they take them.

Allowing whole milk, particularly flavored whole milk, to be served in schools is against current dietary recommendations and against the recommendation of experts, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

We know that too much saturated fat can raise bad cholesterol levels, a known cause of heart disease. Most troubling, many varieties of flavored milk that are pushed by this bill contain unhealthy chemicals, such as artificial colors and flavors, and nearly twice the amount of sugar as plain milk.

At a time when one in five school-age children already has adverse cholesterol levels, we should not be making it easier to serve unhealthier meals in schools.

This bill blatantly ignores the science.

Even if you deny these facts, everyone should be able to admit we are long overdue for a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. We owe it to students and their families to consistently improve the meals that schools are serving. The last comprehensive reauthorization of the laws governing school meal programs was done 13 years ago.

I wish the Republican majority would spend more time helping to pass comprehensive policies to support our schools as they work to provide healthier and more satisfying meals to our students within current nutritional standards. We should not waste time on this one-off change to serve special interests that circumvent the normal process for updating meal standards.

I think we owe it to our children, their health, and their futures to let the experts guide what we are providing them to eat in schools. We should not allow politicians to make the decisions in what should be a science-based process.

Today, we are also considering H.R. 357, another attempt by the Republican majority to derail the Federal rulemaking process. This is an unnecessary and vague bill designed to undermine the critical work of Federal agencies.

It is part of a MAGA narrative that unfairly and untruthfully paints hardworking Federal employees, nonpartisan experts in their fields, as faceless bureaucrats who are somehow hostile to everyday Americans.

The fact is that the regulatory process that our Republican colleagues seek to frame as a battle against some vast bureaucratic conspiracy is actually an essential part of ensuring that we all have clean air and water to breathe and drink, healthy food to eat, and safe planes, trains, and automobiles to travel in.

The truth is that Congress already has a wide range of ways to exercise oversight and control over rulemaking.

If the majority is so concerned about improving the process, they would join Democratic efforts to ensure corporate interests can't game that process. They would advocate for incorporating more public feedback in those agencies' decisions.

They don't really want to make the process better. Instead, bills like this would create a bottleneck in our government's operations that will prevent rules that the Republican majority doesn't like.

This bill would politicize the process of confirming nominees to administrative agencies even more than it is already. Individual Senators would have even more incentive to block an administration's nomination for partisan and corporate goals. More corporate influence would be allowed to infiltrate the Senate confirmation process. Ultimately, our agencies would be obstructed from doing important work to protect the American people's health and safety and making government function better.

It is clear my Republican colleagues don't want to make our government work better. These aren't traditional conservatives. They are nihilists dedicated to grinding government to a halt.

With this bill and their previous efforts to decimate Federal rulemaking, they prefer to upend the regulatory process, even if it improves the lives of Americans every single day.

The Federal Government has long played an important role in promoting

the health, safety, and welfare of the American people. We should ensure that it is able to continue doing so.

Again and again, we have seen this Republican majority prioritize the wrong things this year, and today is no different. They are using valuable floor time and committee time to pass marginal bills, enable their own infighting, and launch an act of petty political vengeance against the current President. Then, they are going to call it a year and go home for the holidays. This is an unacceptable way to govern. It is not governance at all.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The epidemic of gun violence has touched every corner of America, tragically devastating families, tearing apart communities, and scarring schoolchildren.

In 2022, nearly 50,000 people died by guns, an average of one person every 11 minutes. This includes almost 20,000 homicides. Mass shootings skyrocketed from 272 in 2014 to 645 last year. In 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death for American children and adolescents. From 2013 to 2022, there was a staggering 87 percent increase in the child and teen firearm death rate.

In 2023, the heartbreak has only continued. As of today, there have been over 40,000 lives lost and over 630 mass shootings. Over 800 schoolchildren 11 years old or under have been killed or injured with guns. Over 4,000 school-age teens have been touched by gun violence.

The American people are crying out for Congress to act. Yet, the House of Representatives is using its precious time to debate chocolate milk. The American people deserve better.

House Democrats are ready to work with Republicans to tackle this epidemic. If we defeat the previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background check for every firearm sale.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

With the rule we consider today, the Republican majority ends a failed year in the choke hold of its most extreme members. They are finishing out 2023 as they started: unproductive, ineffective, and unconcerned for the American people. They have ignored the real problems facing our Nation today, issues like the gun violence crisis, ongoing threats to Americans' fundamental freedoms, access to economic opportunity and good-paying jobs, and threats to our national security.

They have filled this Chamber with culture wars and conspiracies and pushed policies that would hurt our children, families, students, seniors, members of the Armed Forces, and workers. They have turned their backs on our allies: democracies standing in the breach against forces that pose serious threats to our own national security. They have wasted days, weeks, and months with cheap political stunts all to the detriment and on the dime of our constituents.

Congress is supposed to work for the people, and this is not what the people sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put people over politics and to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Chair, today, we are considering a bill that would require both houses of Congress to vote to approve, and for the President to sign, a motion of approval for any major rule in progress from our executive branch.

We are considering this bill just a week after a splinter group of the far-right Republicans voted down a rule and held our legislative calendar hostage all to prove a point about a debt ceiling that already has passed Congress and has been signed by the President.

Even before this radical move, I had no doubt that the REINS Act would grind to a halt the most impactful actions by our regulatory state. Now, after seeing what just a handful of Members will do just to make a point, I am certain that we cannot let bad measures like this one move forward.

The REINS Act would frustrate the purpose of government and put our constituents in harm's way.

Even if the underlying policy behind the REINS Act was a good idea, which it emphatically is not, I would still argue against it because it is unconstitutional. By allowing the regulation to be blocked from being implemented if even one Chamber declines to pass an approval resolution, the REINS Act is essentially a legislative veto, which the Supreme Court has already held to be unconstitutional.

The goal of this legislation, quite simply, is to stop the regulatory process in its tracks, regardless of its impact on public health and safety.

The bill purports to give Congress control of the rulemaking process, but Congress already has this power and it exercises it in a number of ways. Congress can delegate authority to agencies with specificity, thus limiting the scope of the agency's authority. It can impose restrictions on rulemaking through appropriations. It can influence rulemaking through oversight activities. If all of these measures are insufficient, we also have the blunt tool of the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress not only to overturn a rule but also to bar the agency from ever passing a substantially similar rule.

The REINS Act is not only redundant, it also creates insurmountable procedural hurdles that would stall the approval of rules of major impact, rules that would be highly beneficial to the public's health and safety.

It is important to remember why we have regulations in the first place. Congress sets broad policies but we delegate authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft technical regulations ourselves.

Who here knows how many parts per billion of arsenic should be allowed in our drinking water? Is 10 the proper amount? Should it be 5 or 15? None of us here knows the answer, but the dedicated professionals at our Federal agencies, many of whom have decades of experience and vast technical expertise, undertake a careful process with numerous procedural safeguards to protect our health and safety.

The recent smog and pollution much of the East Coast experienced last week as a result of the Canadian wildfires is a great example of why we need an informed regulatory state to act on our behalf. Decades ago, many cities had similar levels of pollutants in the air, clogging our lungs and causing harm to our children and the environment as we saw last week.

Thanks to expert-informed policies like those regulations instituted under the Clean Air Act, we rarely have days like we saw last week when our most vulnerable citizens must take shelter inside to avoid breathing the air.

Regulations ensure that our air is safe to breathe, our water is safe to drink, our food is safe to eat, and the lifesaving medications we depend on are safe and effective.

I feel much better about leaving regulatory decisions to the careful study of agency experts rather than to Members of Congress who want to substitute their judgment, subject to the whims of politics.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will note that we have letters representing over 180 public interest organizations, health experts, and labor unions opposed to the REINS Act because of the harm this bill presents to our country's health and welfare.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the letters of opposition.

March 9, 2023.

Dear Senator/Representative: The following undersigned

organizations representing the public health, medical and

patient advocacy communities, write to you to state our

strong opposition to S. 184 and H.R. 277--the Regulations

from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 (REINS

Act), and we ask you to oppose this harmful legislation.

The REINS Act is a threat to public health. It would add

major roadblocks to health-protective regulations by

requiring Congress to approve all ``major'' rules issued by

federal agencies within a 70-day window. This includes public

health rules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food

and Drug Administration, among other federal agencies that

protect the health and safety of American citizens. Under the

REINS Act, the default would be Congress blocking important

and critical protections including clean air, public health,

safety and healthcare measures that have already been

authorized by current law.

The REINS act would unilaterally weaken the implementation

of public health and safety safeguards that require the

promulgation of significant rules that benefit millions of

Americans. These include rules that are statutorily required

to prevent deaths, illness and injury and to protect the

public health. Additionally, the REINS Act would give

Congress the power to prevent a ``major'' rule from being

effectively implemented simply by taking no action. This step

delays safeguards and means that agencies would not only have

to reckon with a significantly longer time frame to pass any

meaningful rules, but also that the health and safety of the

public would remain in limbo and under threat. As we've

tragically witnessed in East Palestine, Ohio, federal rules

are imperative to ensuring the health and safety of the

public.

The REINS Act would also hinder the ability of federal

agencies to act and respond to threats swiftly and

effectively. While there are some exceptions that allow a

rule to be implemented for one 90-day period without

Congressional approval--it is not enough.

The REINS Act is a threat to our nation's health. We urge

you to oppose the REINS Act and other similar legislation.

Sincerely,

American Lung Association, Allergy & Asthma Network,

Alliance for Nurses for Healthy Environments, ALS

Association, American Heart Association, Asthma and Allergy

Foundation of America, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,

Climate Psychiatry Alliance, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Health Care Without Harm, Hemophilia Federation of America,

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners,

National Environmental Health Association, National

Organization for Rare Disorders, Physicians for Social

Responsibility.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill to committee. If the House rules permitted, we would have offered the motion with an important amendment to the bill. The amendment would have ensured that vulnerable groups like veterans and their health will not be harmed by the politicization and delay of critical executive branch rules under the REINS Act.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the proposed text of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, although the REINS Act will harm everyone, we must at least ensure that those who serve in our Armed Forces are not further harmed by this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is just the latest effort by Republicans to dismantle and destroy the regulatory process, a process that protects our health and safety each and every day.

Regulations ensure that we have clean air to breathe, clear water to drink, and safe food to eat. They ensure that children's toys and cribs are safe, that medications are safe and effective, and that the planes, trains, and automobiles we depend on for transportation will keep us safe. They ensure that consumers are protected from fraud and discrimination, that workers are treated fairly, that veterans are fairly compensated for their service, and so much more.

However, Republicans want to stop this process in its tracks and put our health and safety at risk, just as they stopped our process of legislating last week, all to prove a point to leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat myself. For all the reasons I gave a couple of minutes ago, this is a very bad bill. It is very dangerous legislation for the peace and health and safety of the people of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 277.

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

Even before America declared its independence, John Adams emphasized that a republic is a government of laws and not of men. That is what we are here to debate tonight.

Are we a government of laws or a government of the executive branch? Are we going to allow the executive branch to write the laws? Are we going to turn our Constitution on its head? Have we gone too far already? I would argue we have, and that is why we need the REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. It provides that every major regulation that the administration seeks to promulgate has to come to Congress first, has to be passed by concurrent majorities in the House and the Senate and signed by the President. This is exactly what our Founders prescribed. This is a bill about who makes the laws in our country, and it is about reclaiming our legislative power from the administrative state.

I think it is appropriate to read from our Constitution at this point. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: ``All legislative powers . . . `' not some legislative powers.

``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.''

Does it say it shall consist of a bureaucracy? It does not. All legislative powers are vested here and in the Senate. That is why we need to stop letting the executive branch make law.

Are they merely tweaking regulations? Are they determining the amount of sulfur dioxide that is acceptable to release from a power plant with civil infractions imposed if a company doesn't comply? No, they are making laws that put people in prison over in the administrative branch, and we are doing nothing about it.

We have atrophied. The power of Congress has atrophied. We are almost like ombudsmen to the executive branch now. This needs to change.

In the words of James Madison: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''

I am afraid that is what we have come to. Too many of our laws, civil and criminal, are now being written by the executive branch.

Here is what the REINS Act does, and here is why it is important. If a regulation that is passed by the executive branch or suggested by the executive branch has more than $100 million of impact--that is a pretty high threshold. I would argue if it has any impact, we should be legislating it, but this is a compromise. If it has more than $100 million of impact, it has to come here if it is going to become a law.

They do not get to write the laws, and so that is why we need the REINS Act.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 31, 2023.

Hon. Jodey Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Arrington: Thank you for consulting with the

Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from

further consideration of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the

Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, so that the

measure may proceed expeditiously to the House floor.

I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure

does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of

your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would

support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate

conference on this legislation.

I will include the exchange of these letters in the

Judiciary Committee's report to accompany this legislation

and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this

legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation

regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to

work together on matters of shared jurisdiction during this

Congress. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan,

Chairman.

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

We now have had a sneak preview of what the next hour of debate is going

to look like. The other side is going to argue that we need to give up more power to the executive branch.

I think our constituents would be appalled. They sent us here and they say we are not effective enough, yet the other side of the aisle is going to say, oh, we need to give the power to the executive branch.

We have also heard here already tonight that this bill, which would restore our Constitution, they say may be unconstitutional. They are referring to a Supreme Court case that has nothing to do with this bill, INS v. Chadha, which said you can't have a legislative veto. That bill that they were ruling on ran afoul of the Constitution because it didn't require passage in both Chambers and a signature by the President.

The REINS Act requires passage in both Chambers and a signature by the President, so their claim that it is unconstitutional is absurd because this is what is required to restore the Constitution.

Their claim that the REINS Act is redundant because we already have the Congressional Review Act is equally as absurd. There have been over 90,000 rules passed by the executive branch since the Congressional Review Act was passed. Only 20 of those have been able to be repealed by this Chamber and the Senate.

This is not a substitute for the Congressional Review Act. It is not redundant. This is what is required. It is what is missing right now in our constitutional structure from what our Founders intended.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), who is also a member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a cost estimate for H.R. 277 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend who serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), the sponsor of the REINS Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, reasonable minds may differ about certain policies, but under the Constitution, we should all be on the same page about who should make law. Congress should make law.

Think about some of the laws that have been promulgated by the administrative branch, things that should have come to Congress. I got on an airplane a few years ago, and they said that Federal law requires that you wear a mask.

Do you know what I thought to myself? We never voted on that law. We should have voted on whether that should be a law or not. I would have voted ``no.''

It probably would not have passed, and if it had and our constituents decided it was too onerous, they could appeal to us, not some bureaucrat.

What are some other examples? The vaccine mandates that cost people their jobs. These were not laws passed by Congress. These were from the executive branch.

Then, tonight, we have just had two bipartisan votes to repeal executive branch rules, one on the pistol brace and one on stoves-- bipartisan.

What does that mean? That means if they had tried to bring those as laws through Congress as the Founders had intended, they would have failed because there would have been bipartisan opposition to that.

We should be making the laws here. It is very simple. When unelected, unaccountable, unrecallable bureaucrats write the laws, then the laws become more numerous and more onerous. We should pass the REINS Act and bring the constitutional authority back to Congress to pass legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee do now rise.