Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.

Though the Supreme Court's decision is disappointing, it does not change the underlying truths of the President's health care law. The law has neither reduced costs nor improved choices available to Americans. It outsources Medicare decisions to an unelected rationing board, interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, and threatens consumers with fewer options and higher premiums.

The health care law is paid for with more than $800 billion in new taxes and another $500 billion or more in Medicare cuts. All told, we are left with 21 tax increases, including the individual mandate, which, for the first time in our country, imposes a Federal tax for inaction.

Imagine what a future Congress could tax you on for not doing: not eating fruits and vegetables, not buying an electric car, not exercising daily to their standards--just to name a few. The possibilities of Congress' taxing power are now seemingly endless and frightening.

On top of that, the Internal Revenue Service is now the official enforcement cop for the health care law, a powerful role requiring the hiring of thousands of new IRS employees at an expense of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The takeaway? Young or old, the health care law does little to ensure affordable coverage for all Americans. We will not feel the full brunt of its impact until 2014, but the law has already proven to be a nightmare.

We can't mistake the Supreme Court's ruling for an evaluation of good policy. At the end of Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion is an important message. He writes:

The Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the

Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, the judgment is

reserved to the people.

And judged they have. This law is a disaster for patients, small businesses, and future generations of Americans. We must repeal it and redouble our efforts to start anew on real process reforms that will increase patient access and quality of care while reducing costs.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 18, 2012, I was not present for the evening vote series. Had I been present, I would have voted:

On rollcall No. 379--``yes''--S. 684, A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah.

On rollcall No. 380--``yes''--S. 404, A bill to modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary of the Interior.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to share with you tonight, as I remember those days being both a freshman doing Special Orders, and also serving on the Armed Services Committee before moving over to the Ways and Means Committee. I appreciate the chance to share.

One thing that I would emphasize: you know, over the last 18 months we've heard a lot of interesting arguments in the media about the 99 percent and the 1 percent and on and on, and it fueled lots of politics. I think the whole argument got best clarified by a group of Army men and women who put together a little video called ``The Real 1 Percent.'' It was focused on servicemembers and servicemembers' families.

Most recently, a little company called Ranger Up T-shirts--admittedly with a tie to my alumni in the Rangers--more accurately stated it was the 0.45 percent. It just talked about the descending level of public involvement in the military to almost a minimal level. People don't understand right now, at this time, that we are in the midst of two wars, we have threats of a wide spectrum that we've never had before. When I enlisted in the military 36 years ago next month, our Army was twice as big as it is today. We're carrying an operations tempo that's significant.

I'm very concerned about the cuts and have made that clear. I'm grateful for the leadership on the Armed Services Committee of Chairman McKeon to try to keep moving these numbers in the right direction because it's my West Point classmates--who are commanding divisions today--who are out there facing these challenges of increased operations tempo. And what an operations tempo is is this, Madam Speaker: that's how often the units have to rotate or deploy into some type of a theater of operations, whether it's peaceful or hostile.

With the drawdowns in personnel, if operations in Afghanistan continue through 2014 and beyond, potentially, that means the deployment rate of our marines and our soldiers could actually be greater than it was in recent years and actually exceed the time during the surge in Iraq in 2007. That's unconscionable to me.

The key to successful doctrine and to successful defense policy ultimately begins with investing in people. The second thing we do is address the threat. Then, after we address the threat, we look at doctrines to deal with that, and finally systems.

Are there opportunities to make cuts in defense to save money? Absolutely. But one of the challenges that often gets missed in debates in Washington, whether it's add money or cut money, is dealing with the root causes that demand that spending. For example, if we look at acquisition spending rather than cutting people, there's tremendous opportunities for cutting of spending. The Federal acquisition regulations, the defense acquisition regulations prescribe a level of overhead that would be considered unacceptable in the private sector.

The gentleman from Virginia, who's about to speak, who is a successful executive in the automotive industry, watched great changes take place over time in terms of what it took to bring a car to marketplace. I'm going to mention this in perspective of a defense example that I personally have been touched by.

Toyota, which is headquartered in my district, redesigns every part on every vehicle and retrains every employee--the entire customer service network and distribution and supply chains are redone every 3 years. The average time to bring an end item, a vehicle, online in the United States military right now is about 15 years.

Now, I keep in my office a little memento. As a former Army aviator who flew here and in the Middle East and had two delightful tours in lower Alabama, which the current Speaker pro tem represents, at Fort Rucker, Alabama, I was very excited about the V 22 Osprey coming online. I got to go to the factory in Fort Worth and was out on the floor, and I managed to pick up a piece of scrap that was cut off from flight test article number 1, the wing spar for flight test article number 1 for the V 22 Osprey. That was 22 June, 1987. Now, here we are almost 25 years later and that aircraft has just come into service. There were starts, there were stops, there were huge additional costs that were put in by requirements that in many cases are entirely unnecessary to get a safe and flight-worthy vehicle.

What this comes down to is, if we can collapse these acquisition timeframes from 15 years to 5, we're going to save all of that cost. We can afford to make the investments that are necessary in our active duty soldiers and in our veterans. It allows us to minimize the institutional impact of these deployment tempos and these wars. I think, furthermore, it's going to allow a more agile defense industrial base that will have predictability and can adapt our technology and our tools to new threats as they emerge, because a lot of the weapon systems that come online now in fact were designed for another era and another timeframe.

To overcome that, we've got to change the process, and that's going to come by a long period of interagency reform and other efforts. But I want to tell you, in this Defense authorization, the keys to beginning that process are addressed.

I think, in a very difficult political environment between the administration calls for spending cuts without bringing about the regulatory acquisition reform that's necessary to really sustain that, the political impasse with the Senate, it's been tremendously helpful to see the leadership of Chairman McKeon, members of the Armed Services Committee to make sure that everything that's possible to be done will keep the money flowing before these rules and regulations can be changed.

The other thing that I would say as well is I voted against the Budget Control Act last year precisely because of defense sequestration. There was an unfair toll that was taken because the root causes were not addressed in that and, hopefully, this lays the foundation for that, along with other reforms that are going to be included in the bill.

At the end of the day, we have the ability to debate tonight freely. American citizens who are watching this can share whatever views they want to. They can go to bed and not be in fear because of men and women who volunteer to stand in harm's way to answer that call when it comes in the middle of the night, and I'm grateful for that, and they're the last people that we need to let down. And that's why I'm a strong supporter of this Defense authorization.

I thank you for the time to share tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, including the provision to end the duplicative Social Services Block Grant.

As chairman of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, we held a hearing last year on duplicative programs such as SSBG. Despite what we have heard from some on the other side, our concern is focused squarely on the design of the SSBG program, which does not serve taxpayers well for a number of reasons.

SSBG is duplicative and unfocused. It supports 29 different types of social services with no eligibility requirements. The Federal Government already spends $446 billion per year on other social services programs, which is about 260 times the amount of SSBG spending. With no State spending requirements or accountability for results, SSBG is more akin to stimulus dollars than other more effective anti-poverty programs.

With staggering deficits, we can't afford to send money to States without accountability through a program that is replicated by literally dozens of other Federal programs. That's what SSBG does today, and it is why it makes sense to end this duplicative program.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 26 and Friday, April 27, I was unable to vote due to a personal event.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

On rollcall No. 182--``yes''--H. Res. 631, On Ordering the Previous Question for consideration of H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 183--``yes''--H. Res. 631, On Agreeing to the Resolution for consideration of H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 184--``no''--Langevin Amendment to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 185--``yes''--Rogers (MI) Amendment to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 186--``yes''--Quayle Amendment to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 187--``yes''--Amash Amendment to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 188--``yes''--Mulvaney Amendment to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 189--``yes''--Goodlatte Amendment to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 190--``yes''--Mulvaney Amendment #15 to H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 191--``no''--Democrat Motion to Recommit on H.R. 3523.

On rollcall No. 192--``yes''--H.R. 3523, Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

On rollcall No. 193--``yes''--H.R. 2096, Cybersecurity Enhancement Act.

On rollcall No. 194--``no''--Motion to Recommit for H.R. 4628.

On rollcall No. 195--``yes''--H.R. 4628, Interest Rate Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Mark S. Newman, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DRS Technologies, as he retires after thirty-nine years of dedicated service to the defense industry and our servicemen and women.

Mark's leadership and inspirational concern for providing our warriors with the very best technology this nation can produce has led to the development and fielding of products which have directly saved lives on the battlefield, created enhanced situational awareness and provided superior advantages to our armed forces. He has, for his entire career, sought to place equipment in the hands of our troops that ensured they not only completed their missions, but returned home safely.

Mark joined DRS Technologies in 1973, four years after the company's founding, and was named a director in 1988. After serving many years as the company's Chief Financial Officer, he was named President and CEO in 1994, and in 1995 was elected Chairman of the Board. Under his watch, the company grew from a small specialty electronics supplier to a highly diversified defense technology provider with 10,000 employees--over 15% of whom have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. In short, Mark has built a company that is a true American success story.

In 2005, Mark established the DRS Technologies Charitable Foundation, with a focus on helping those who serve--a cause he knew would resonate throughout the entire DRS workforce. Through the years that followed, he has raised about $600,000 to support the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund and their efforts to build a world-class, state-of-the-art physical rehabilitation center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. Mark also helped raise over $500,000 to assist the USO with the initiative ``Operation Enduring Care,'' becoming a Global Partner with the USO in the process. In 2009, Mark helped raise over $600,000 for the building of the state-of-the-art Intrepid Center of Excellence to research, diagnose and treat Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) suffered by those injured while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and just last year Mark made it his personal mission to support ``Operation Mend'' at UCLA Medical Center matching the $240,000 donated by DRS leadership with $240,000 of his own money. His patriotism and philanthropic initiatives supporting military charities makes him a hero in his own right.

Mr. Speaker, I ask House--me in recognizing Mark S. Newman's contributions and thanking him for his dedication to our servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of Alex Blevins, a devoted father and husband, and the Executive Director of the Kentucky Court Appointed Special Advocate or CASA organization.

Alex leaves behind his wife Alice and their two beautiful children, Harper and Charlie. Their father was a man who spent years working as a determined advocate for children in need, particularly those who were abused and neglected. On behalf of my wife Pat and myself, I want to extend our deepest sympathies to the Blevins family.

Alex dedicated much of his professional career to Kentucky CASA's mission of providing leadership and support for local CASA organizations that recruit and train volunteers to serve abused and neglected children as court appointed special advocates. Through statewide advocacy of the CASA mission and the provision of training, support and resources, Kentucky CASA partners with National CASA, local programs and others to serve as a powerful voice in a child's life.

Alex had an unbridled compassion for abused and neglected children. He worked diligently on their behalf as part of Kentucky CASA for nearly eight years. He assisted local chapters and worked to increase the number of counties in the Commonwealth with CASA volunteers to ensure more children benefit from this important service.

Alex graduated from Centre College in 2003. He served on the Kentucky Court of Justice's Improvement Project Advisory Board and National CASA's Inclusion and Diversity Committee, as well as Public Policy Co- Chairman for Kentucky's Blue Ribbon Panel on Adoption and Safety.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and remembering my friend, Alex Blevins. Kentucky is a better place because of Alex and his outstanding contributions to the Commonwealth. His leadership and compassionate advocacy on behalf of children will be sorely missed.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment before speaking on this measure to respond to the gentleman's remark, my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas and ranking member on the subcommittee.

We've worked very hard over the last year on the issue of data standardization, correcting flaws in the system, got the first data standardization language in the history of the country, an act that would begin to address issues like this. I beg to respectfully disagree with the position that the ranking member took on this, talking about the idea of convenience with the casino or adult establishments.

As somebody who grew up in interesting circumstances and has done a lot of volunteer work over the last 30 years with folks with challenges, the

first question that I would ask if somebody is in need of assistance is, what in the world are they doing using a card to get cash inside of a casino. I'm not impugning anybody's integrity, but as somebody who can look across the river from where I live where there are several casinos, there are more than enough establishments, and I think the deeper question that we have to address is how our funds are going to be used when we help those who are in need. There are legitimate needs that these people have, and we've got to make sure that this program is tight, that it has the integrity to function so that every dollar is going to meeting those basic needs. I think it's a very small thing to bring this type of integrity to the program.

I rise in support of H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011, introduced by my close friend from Louisiana, Congressman Charles Boustany.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is a program that provides support for low-income families and children that helps them to move from welfare to work. It was a successful reform since it replaced the New Deal-era welfare programs in 1996, and TANF has been successful at cutting welfare dependence by 57 percent.

Are there opportunities to improve the program, to strengthen the program? Absolutely. There are a variety of issues and core processes that need to be addressed to bring more private sector practices into the management and administration of the program, like the data standardization that I talked about earlier, to allow us to understand how funds are being used and how better to serve those who are being helped by providing information to those on the front line.

Even more importantly, though, by promoting work among single parents, who are the most common welfare recipients, it helps significantly reduce child poverty in female-headed families over time. Even at today's elevated unemployment rates, TANF continues to promote more work and earnings and less poverty.

Despite this overall progress, TANF can and should be strengthened. Recently, concern has been raised about TANF benefits being withdrawn and used at strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos. This is inappropriate as a use of taxpayer dollars and an outright abuse of taxpayer trust. Indeed, as my colleague from Louisiana highlighted, many local news investigations and exposes have verified this unfortunate abuse of a well-intended program.

One of the most shocking reports to me was from King 5 News in Seattle, Washington. They discovered through an investigation that 13,000 TANF recipients withdrew approximately $2 million at casinos just in 2010.

I think it's very reasonable from an oversight position to ask the question, why are they in the casino in the first place? The use of these dollars can't possibly be meeting basic grocery needs and things like that in an establishment like that or any other type of adult establishment.

Luckily, some States like Washington, New Mexico, and Texas have begun to take action on a local basis, but I believe this is one issue that we need to address at the Federal level, at the core, first by stopping this problem as a symptom and then dealing with the deeper systemic and process issues that we can establish through data standardization and simple controls so these cards will not even work in such an establishment.

H.R. 3567 would close the so-called ``strip club'' loophole within 2 years of enactment. The States would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. In plain language, welfare benefits could no longer be accessed at any of these facilities.

The same provision was included in H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, as well as H.R. 3659, a standalone TANF extension bill introduced by Congressman Erik Paulsen, both of which passed the House in December. This bipartisan, bicameral program integrity provision will safeguard taxpayer funds from abuse and ensure that TANF benefits will continue to provide a helping hand to families that are in need.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3567.

I do feel compelled to respond since Martin Niemoller--the famous German Christian pastor who was quoted after World War II when talking about inaction--was dealing with the issue of the Holocaust, the scale of which was so unbelievably beyond the pale of a small technical fix

that we're talking about here that, I believe, the gentleman diminished the value of whatever argument he was making by even quoting him.

If I seem to recall my history correctly when I was running a business in 1996, during the welfare debate, Martin Niemoller was resurrected from the dead again, using the same quote that somehow, if we just touch anything that will provide integrity to our programs with which we want to help the poor, that, in fact, this is the march down the slippery slope to the complete takeover and removal of civil rights.

Come on, folks. This is a technical business discussion. If we were running a business together--and I believe the government should be run that way--I think we'd be sitting around a table in the operations room while planning ways to legitimately cut costs to more efficiently help our customers and to eliminate waste.

In using the gentleman's own argument that he brought up, this is the question again: If the vast majority--and I happen to agree with him-- don't go in those places in the first place, why would we not want to put in a simple program control for that small percentage that does to prevent them from wasting taxpayer dollars?

From the casinos that we have across the river, from some of the economic hardship that comes from that and from my constituents who have families who have been damaged by this, I know, in walking inside any number of the casinos on the Ohio River, that I'm not seeing grocery stores, that I'm not seeing provisions for food. What I'm seeing are ATMs and access to free chips and for gambling--not to eat.

I think this begs the deeper question: To the average man or woman on the street, if we ask the question ``Is it reasonable?'' absolutely.

I want to bring us back to the central point here as to what this does. First is the idea that it costs too much, and I'll speak for my other life as a systems professional. The gentleman from Louisiana rightly pointed out that the fixing of the system is actually an easy thing to do, and we will find ready participation and cooperation from those who are involved because they understand the stakes in this. The goal of their businesses is not a further recycling of poverty. The goal of their businesses is to make sure, to some degree, that money is not used in a manner that reflects poor stewardship. I think, ultimately, this is a backstop to assure that money that belongs to the United States taxpayer that's being given to them as assistance is going to be used in a proper manner.

At the end of the day, that refutes the baseline of these arguments-- again, going back to the great success that our staffs have had and that the gentleman from Texas and I have had over the course of the last year to really begin to move serious, nonpartisan process reforms that will help to fix deficiencies in the system which are not Democrat or Republican at their root but are addressing real questions of broken processes.

If we were sitting there among ourselves in a business together that we were running or if we were sitting with our families and if we noticed that there were an issue, hey, we could put a stop to that and we could fix that. Why don't we do the same thing here? It's not an unreasonable request to look at that.

Again, some of the speakers are not on our subcommittee, and I think we've had great success in keeping the tone of the debate focused on the core process problems, not on extremely energetic and emotional rhetoric that really doesn't address this root issue. That would be my request as we move forward. This is a good fix. It is a cheap way to save taxpayer money to legitimately help those in need.

Madam Speaker, again I remind all of my colleagues that when we talk about such matters, it's helpful to focus on tone. The one thing I'm going to respond to, when the comment was made ``that you people shredded,'' I would have to remind all Members in the Chamber and the Speaker that, in fact, that was passed in a Democratic House when the Speaker was Ms. Pelosi and the leader of the Senate was Senator Reid.

We have worked in good faith through this process. And what I would remind folks about the fundamental question as we look at this, the real issue here--and I grew up in a dysfunctional family. I know what it means to see dysfunctional alcoholism with a stepfather leaving and spending the money in places that were inappropriate; and I think it's a fair question, as someone who has lived that as a little boy, to say, wait a minute, if Dad wants to run off with the EBT card and go to one of the boats over in Indiana, we as a body have a responsibility, Democrat and Republican, who care very deeply for this country and for our citizens, to say wait a minute, that's not an appropriate use.

The businesses themselves will cooperate. There's a contextual issue to allow the States to deal with the specific uniqueness of providers of foodstuffs. But at the same time, I think that if an EBT card is being used in a place that may have a drink rack inside of it and pole dancers on the other end, that is not, under any standard of morality, a place where the EBT card should be used.

I can think of no mother who would want the money spent there. I can think of no circumstance that would justify it. And, frankly, having my own stepfather come home drunk and beat up me and my mother after running around out in town with what money she basically earned, I would say in this case it's unacceptable.

Let's come back to the real world, and I'm not going to yield my time. Let's come back to the real world and look at the reality of this. What is being asked is a procedural and a process change to give better stewardship to a program on which we agree about the fundamentals, specifically, the data standardization and control. There's virtually no cost to this.

I understand we have honest differences of opinion here; but I would appreciate that the rhetoric be toned down and we focus on the reality of this. If we ask any mom or dad or recipient or taxpayer out on the street this fundamental question, I think overwhelmingly, when they heard it in the context of reality and not sometimes the things that happen in the Chamber here, they would look at it from a different perspective. That's what we're asking.

With that, I ask all Members to support this very reasonable, very measured, very balanced way to fix a flaw in a program that can be made better as a result of that, be better stewards of our taxpayer dollars. And with that, I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, December 15, 2011, I was unable to vote due to an important family event.

Had I been present, I would have voted:

On rollcall No. 933--``yes''--Approval of the Journal.

On rollcall No. 934--``yes''--H.R. 886--U.S. Marshals Service 225th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act.

On rollcall No. 935--``yes''--H.R. 2719, Rattlesnake Mountain Public Access Act.

On rollcall No. 936--``yes''--H.R. 443, To Provide for the conveyance of certain property from the U.S. to the Maniilaq Association in Kotzebue, AK.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, 2011, I was unable to vote due to an important family event. Had I been present, I would have voted:

On rollcall No. 937--yes--Previous Question on H. Res. 500, Rule for consideration of the Conference Report for H.R. 2055.

On rollcall No. 938--yes--H. Res. 500, Rule for consideration of the Conference Report for H.R. 2055.

On rollcall No. 939--yes--Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892, Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012.

On rollcall No. 940--yes--S. 278, Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act.

On rollcall No. 941--yes--H.R. 2055, Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.

On rollcall No. 942--yes--H. Con. Res. 94, Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3672.

On rollcall No. 942--yes--H.R. 3672, Making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending September 20, 2012.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3630, and tire of the empty rhetoric that I hear over and over again. As the chairman just pointed out, this bill includes many provisions that your party's President recommended. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and we are politicizing something at the expense of working families, which is a sad thing to see happen in this Chamber.

The legislation includes important provisions designed to promote job creation; but I would like to focus on the bill's provisions to reform and improve unemployment insurance, or UI.

These commonsense reforms expect UI recipients to search for work and to make progress towards a GED or other training they need to get back to work. We let States make reasonable exceptions, but the message is clear: UI needs to change to do a better job of helping people get back to work.

The bill also lets States apply for waivers of Federal law so they can test better ways to engage the unemployed. Our colleagues are right--there are too many long-term unemployed today, and we need to hold government programs more accountable for helping more of them find work sooner, including through wage subsidies and other innovative approaches that have received bipartisan support.

Also contained in this bill is a program integrity provision to improve data standards in the UI program in order to help it operate more efficiently and effectively across States and to help it better coordinate with other programs. This same provision was included in the bipartisan child welfare legislation signed by President Obama in September and is included in another section of this bill covering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

H.R. 3630 also makes reasonable reductions in temporary Federal UI benefits while extending that program for another year and maintaining up to 59 weeks of benefits by the middle of 2012:

First, it ends 20 weeks of Federal benefits that were added to the program when the national unemployment rate was at 9.9 percent, or well above today's 8.6 percent. Second, we adopt the President's call to phase out a second 20 weeks of Federal UI benefits in the early months of 2012.

So, instead of cutting or slashing and so on, as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle dubiously claim, the facts show that the UI benefits extended in this bill would aid over 5 million people at a cost of $34 billion--all paid for through other savings. That's an average of almost $7,000 in Federal help for every person aided.

In fact, with this bill, the total UI spending since the start of 2008 will stretch to an astounding $546 billion. That's not a typo. UI spending has totaled over a half a trillion dollars in the past 5 years. That's over five times--listen to this--over five times as much as it would cost to put a man on the Moon in today's dollars.

I urge the support of this much needed legislation and, most importantly, of its long needed reforms so that the UI program does a better job in helping Americans get back to work sooner.

I thank the chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the upcoming 67th anniversary of the Battle of Colmar Pocket.

The Battle of the Colmar Pocket was fought between January 22 and February 9, 1945, to liberate the last major French city occupied by the German Army. The ferocious preliminary fighting which formed the Colmar Pocket began after the arrival of U.S. 7th Army and 1st French Army forces at Strasbourg, north of Colmar, on November 23rd and Mulhouse, south of Colmar on November 25th, 1944. These Armies, under command of the 6th Army Group under Lieutenant General Jacob L. Devers, had fought their way through the Vosges Mountains to reach these cities beginning in mid-September, and were the first military force in history to successfully do so.

The 1st French Army, commanded by General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, had the mission to clear the Pocket and liberate Colmar, destroying the German forces in the Pocket or driving their remainder across the Rhine. Initially, the 36th Infantry Division, under Major General John Dahlquist, arrived at Selestat on December 4, 1944, fixing the northern shoulder of the Pocket. Under French command, the 36th Infantry Division fought its way south to the vicinity of Kaysersberg, Ostheim, Mittelwihr, and Bennwihr, in frigid winter weather, where the division fought off fanatical German counterattacks launched in support of the German Ardennes Offensive, the Battle of the Bulge. In mid-December this stalwart division was withdrawn from the Colmar sector to rest and refurbish after its long, debilitating campaign through the Vosges. For the fighting to collapse the Pocket, two 36th Infantry Division soldiers received the Medal of Honor, Sergeant Ellis R. Weicht and T/ SGT Bernard P. Bell.

Major General Iron Mike O'Daniel's 3rd Infantry Division then under acting Division Commander Brigadier General Robert N. Young, which had also fought its way as part of 7th Army through the Vosges Mountains to Strasbourg, was attached to II Corps of the 1st French Army under Major General Aime de Goislard de Monsabert, and in mid-December continued the fight to collapse the northern section of the Pocket, seizing Kaysersberg, Sigolsheim, Mittelwihr, and Bennwihr and the dominating high ground of Hill 355 above Sigolsheim and Hill 216 outside Bennwihr in the final two weeks of December 1944. For their intrepid and gallant actions in the fighting between December 15 and January 21, 1945, the following 3td Infantry Division soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor: 1LT Charles P. Murray, Jr.; 1LT Eli Whitely; LTC Keith L. Ware; T/SGT Gus Kefurt; and T/SGT Russell Dunham.

As this difficult fighting was taking place, other 1st French Army units were pressing remaining German units in the Vosges Mountains at the westernmost extent of the Pocket, as well as in the south near Mulhouse. The tough fighting and harsh winter weather had greatly worn down the French, and it was determined further U.S. reinforcement was needed to enable our valiant allies to finally collapse the Pocket. The first to arrive were the soldiers of Major General Norman D. Cota's 28th Infantry Division, which had fought hard in the Bulge. They arrived on January 19th, taking over the 3rd Infantry Division's sector in the Kaysersberg valley.

On January 22nd, the 3rd Infantry Division, now under MG O'Daniel, with attached 254th Infantry Regiment of the 63rd Infantry Division and reinforced by a combat command of the 5th French Armored Division, launched the II Corps main effort to breach enemy defenses protecting the Colmar Canal and to isolate Colmar from the Rhine River by seizing the bridge at Neuf-Brisach. January 22nd found then Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd B. Ramsey from Somerset, Kentucky, in command of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry. He had commanded the battalion since taking command in the Anzio beach head in February 1944, and had commanded it for Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France, the Southern France campaign, and through the Vosges. Leading his battalion across the ill River, through minefields against dug-in enemy machine gun positions south of the village of Guemar in a night attack, Ramsey showed outstanding leadership and gallantry which led to the award of the Silver Star. Despite being wounded by enemy shell fragments, he ensured his battalion continued advancing in the face of stubborn resistance, breaking through the enemy positions and enabling the rest of the division to drive south.

Ramsey would continue his sterling combat service and go on to achieve the rank of Major General, and commanded the AMERICAL Division in Vietnam from 1969 until 1970. He was severely injured in a helicopter crash in Vietnam and eventually was forced to retire for medical reasons in 1974. MG Ramsey is a proud son of Kentucky, and a member of the University of Kentucky Hall of Fame.

The 3rd Infantry Division's dogged attack and imaginative scheme of maneuver enabled it to reach and cross the Colmar Canal the night of January 29-30 after a week of very heavy fighting. This combat included a serious incident at the bridge across 111 at the Maison Rouge where the failure of the bridge resulted in isolated battalions of the 30th and 15th Infantry Regiments defending unsupported against severe enemy armored counterattacks. For actions during January 22nd through the 26th, two Medals of Honor would be awarded to 3rd Infantry Division soldiers, PFC Jose F. Valdez and 2LT Audie L. Murphy.

The XXI Corps, commanded by Major General Frank W. Milburn, took command of the 3rd Infantry Division, the 28th Infantry Division, the 75th Infantry Division commanded by Major General Roy E. Porter, the 5th French Armored Division, and the 12th Armored Division commanded by Major General Roderick C. Allen at the end of January and continued the attack which succeeded in the 3rd Infantry Division's seizure of NeufBrisach. The 75th Infantry Division attacked and protected the 3rd Infantry Division's west flank. The 28th Infantry Division launched its attack from the Kaysersberg valley and cleared the suburbs of Colmar, enabling units of the French 5th Armored Division to enter the city on February 2nd. Immediately thereafter, the 12th Armored Division was committed for a drive south and

on February 5th, met French elements advancing north at Rouffach. French forces completed the cleansing of the Pocket and destruction of the enemy's final bridge across the Rhine at Chalampe on 9 February 9th, 1945. For this final phase of the fight, one more Medal of Honor was awarded to the 3rd Infantry Division's T/5 Forrest E. Peden.

The Battle of the Colmar Pocket, overshadowed by the Battle of the Bulge to the north, saw some of the bitterest fighting of the war and resulted in the award of the Presidential Unit Citation to the entire 3rd Infantry Division with its attachments, as well as the award of the fourragere of the Croix de Guerre embroidered Colmar. The 109th Infantry Regiment of the 28th Infantry Division was also awarded the fourragere.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in congratulating and thanking the surviving veterans of the Battle of the Colmar Pocket on the upcoming 67th anniversary of this battle which liberated Colmar and cleared the Germans from southern Alsace. I especially would like to express my thanks and admiration to Major General Ramsey for his outstanding combat leadership at Colmar and throughout his illustrious military career.

Thank you, Judge Carter. I appreciate your holding this tonight and your flexibility in allowing me some time to share as we've talked about before at times on the floor various aspects of the growth of the regulatory State.

The issue is not being against regulation or for regulation. The issue is having transparency and accountability. We've seen in this administration and the last administration, the administration before that, an ever-increasing reach in agencies where they're stretching the law, whether it's the Clean Air Act of 1972 that's being stretched to proportions far beyond the original intent of Congress or issues related to the Clean Water Act that stretch beyond the bounds of science, to unfunded mandates in No Child Left Behind from the last administration. We can think of a wide variety of these issues.

For me, I think the American public wakes up when it hits them in the pocketbook, when it hits you and me in the pocketbook. In our case, you probably experienced the same thing in Texas.

The year that I was sworn into Congress, a consent decree was forced upon our local community for nearly a billion dollars in storm water compliance that was not only beyond the needs of the community, it was beyond the economic capability of the community to comply.

That was based on a rule issued by an interpretation of a law that had been passed 8 years before in a different Congress, in a different political climate. And again, our citizens, the citizens of the Fourth District of Kentucky, citizens of districts across the United States, had no recourse but to comply with this.

One of my constituents walked in as we wrestled with different aspects of not limiting regulation but providing accountability, providing the opportunity for the voters, our citizens, to be able to hold the government accountable for what it does, walked in and said to me, ``Jeff, why can't you guys vote on this?'' And we had a revelation in a different way to come back and address the issue of regulatory transparency.

Standardization is important, but it needs to be at a place that the American people agree with and support and is practicable from the standpoint of cost. And the economic cost is often not incurred in this. We have towns across the United States, across the Ohio Valley whose compliance cost with just that regulation alone is more than what the budgets of the communities are on an annual basis. It's unreasonable, and there is no recourse.

So we went back and we researched and found a portion in the Congressional Review Act of 1995 that we suggested changing. And to the shock of many of my constituents, only one regulation has ever been repealed in the history of the Congress. That was the Clinton-era ergonomics rule that had the House, the Senate, and a President who would sign that.

So you have to get, in effect, a majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and then have a Chief Executive who is willing to change that or to prevent that regulation from going into effect.

What we wanted to do was something a little bit different. It's done in industry; it's done in business. In effect, it's done in virtually all competitive sports, where, if something gets out of bounds or out of expectation, the game stops. In production, on the assembly line, when the red light comes on, the line stops, and people have to take an extra look at what the issue is. In this case, what we wanted to do was have a simple process to restore transparency and congressional accountability of what the executive branch does, which was the genesis of the REINS Act. It's really a very simple thing.

The REINS Act stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. It's H.R. 10 in this Congress. The number on the chart up there was from the last Congress, H.R. 3765. Basically, what it does is it requires Congress to approve all new major rules so that ``major rule'' is defined as one that has $100 million or more in cumulative economic impact across our country.

What our bill will do is really very simple.

Once a rule comes to the end of its 60-day comment period, it would have to come back up to Capitol Hill for a stand-alone, up-or-down vote under a joint resolution in the House, in the Senate, and then be signed by the President of the United States. It's making the point that for any major rule, a rule that reaches into the pocketbooks of all hardworking, taxpaying Americans, they have a right to be able to hold their elected Representatives and Senators accountable for the position that they take on that direct economic impact.

For me, I think it's fine. There are times that America will stand up and say, Yes, we agree with this, and this is the right thing to do. There are other times, particularly in hard economic times like today, when the last thing that we want to do is increase that regulatory burden, that out-of-pocket cost on America's citizens.

To give you an idea of this, the cost in 2009 alone for the compliance of regulation on our economy was $1.75 trillion. If some significant portion of that regulatory process were streamlined, that would be creating jobs and, ultimately, more taxpayers.

I think the gentleman has a great point. In fact, it comes down, I think, to about $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America for the cost of regulatory compliance.

To your point, why it's so critical now is that we've seen agencies in the last administration and in this administration that have gone into overreach. Most importantly, what we saw happen in the last Congress was a Democratic supermajority in the House, in the Senate, with a liberal Democratic President, who was out to keep his campaign promises. I can respect that. The American people spoke in that election, but they also spoke in the election that followed last year in that they did not agree with the overreach, be it legislative or on the regulatory side; and they made a change, certainly, in this body.

The administration proceeded at that point to attempt to enact cap- and-trade rules--an energy tax on every American--by regulation. When the Congress in a Democratic supermajority could not pass those bills in order to send them to the President's desk, they were intent on doing it by executive order.

It's the same thing that we see happening potentially with the card check-forced unionization bill. It could not pass in the last Congress, so we see attempts to move that by regulation. There are issues with unfunded mandates on our schools. We're even seeing an extension of that inside the Department of Education, which further hamstrings already strapped local school districts. It could not get through the United States Congress, so we're seeing attempts to do that by regulation.

What the REINS Act would simply do is say, Stop, Mr. President. Stop, Cabinet Secretary. You have to have the advice and the consent of the representatives of the American people before you're going to move for something that's going to hit us that hard. We have 197 cosponsors on the bill so far. Two hearings were held on this in the Judiciary Committee. It was passed out of the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. We had a markup in the Rules Committee to go over some technical pieces inside of the bill regarding the timelines on vote triggers. It passed out of the Rules Committee; and we're looking for a vote here, hopefully in the very near future, to see it passed and sent over to the United States Senate.

I appreciate what the gentleman from Texas is doing to champion this move to not only awaken the American people to the huge economic impact of

overregulation, but to present a wide variety of legislative fixes that you and many of our colleagues have authored to stem this tide of overreach of the government and to allow our economy to stand up in energy, in manufacturing, and agriculture. With that, I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize America Recycles Day, an annual national awareness event, the mission of which is to promote the social, environmental, and economic benefits of recycling and buying recycled products.

Today, I would like to highlight the automotive recycling industry, which plays a large role in preserving our natural resources and reducing demand for scarce landfill space.

During the recycling process, over 80 percent of the entire vehicle by weight is reused, remanufactured or recycled. The recycling of these vehicles saves an estimated 85 million barrels of oil that would have been used in the manufacturing of new or replacement parts.

Automotive recycling businesses employ over 108,000 people around the country. The majority of these businesses are small, family owned and operated.

The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA) is an international trade association which has represented an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and reuse of automotive parts, and the safe disposal of inoperable motor vehicles. Our Nation owes much to the 4,500 automotive recycling facilities represented by the ARA, that help to recycle over 11 million retired vehicles every year. ARA has instituted its own program that certifies that automotive recycling facilities meet specified business, environmental, safety, licensing and regulatory standards.

Mr. Speaker, please join me, on America Recycles Day, in commending the automotive recyclers for all they do to protect and promote our environment.