Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 786.

This legislation would amend title 28 of the United States Code to provide an additional place for holding court in the Western District of Texas and in the Western District of Washington. These additional courthouses are needed to better serve the 12.2 million people who call these two districts home.

Both of these districts are comprised of wide areas of land. The Western District of Washington takes up half of Washington State. The Western District of Texas covers the western 68 counties of the State. Citizens of these two districts often need to travel for hours to access the courthouse doors.

On paper, our basic rights do not change depending on where we live. In practice, that is exactly what is happening. It makes no sense that just because someone lives in a more rural, broader district, they should incur dramatically increased travel time and administrative costs to seek justice. Adding courthouses is a small step in the right direction toward making the courthouse doors accessible to all Americans no matter where they live.

The Judicial Conference has recommended the addition of these two courthouses, a recommendation that grew even more urgent after the Western District of Washington's Bellingham facility had part of its roof collapse.

This country cannot have a flourishing justice system when its buildings are falling apart, its staff are underpaid, and there is a perpetual shortage of judges to fairly administer the laws.

This bill will not fix all of these problems, but it will take a small step to help millions of Americans gain equal access to justice. I think it is a step worth taking.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Tony Gonzales, Rick Larsen, and Suzan DelBene in the House, and Senators Cornyn, Murray, Cruz, and Cantwell in the Senate for working on a bipartisan basis to introduce this legislation to improve the lives of the residents of Texas and Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes a modest but important change to help improve access to justice for millions of Americans. I thank the sponsors, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to this amendment to eliminate funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA program.

This amendment would cut off housing support for tens of thousands of people living with HIV. In doing so, we take ourselves back to the 1980s--when the government ignored the needs of those living with HIV and the urgency of the HIV epidemic.

For more than three decades, HOPWA has provided critical support for low-income people living with HIV. HOPWA is a bipartisan program that serves over 75,000 people, providing housing assistance including rental assistance, transitional housing, and permanent housing.

Stable housing is essential for helping people living with HIV to achieve better health outcomes. Linking individuals living with HIV to stable, supportive housing is directly linked to decreased viral load, an 80 percent reduction in mortality from AIDS, and a 57 percent reduction in hospitalizations.

To destabilize housing for 55,000 households and over 75,000 people would create a public health disaster. Cutting funding to HOPWA would cost far more money in increased healthcare costs than investing in this critical program at the outset.

This amendment would significantly impede our Nation's efforts both to support those living with HIV and to end the HIV epidemic.

With Veterans Day on Saturday, I also want to inform my colleagues that 10 percent of HOPWA recipients are veterans.

I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for continued funding for HOPWA, just as this body has done since 1992.

If the gentleman is truly interested in cutting the deficit, he might consider supporting repeal of President Trump's tax cuts of 2018 where 83 percent of the benefits went to the top 1 percent of the people and which increased the deficit by several trillion dollars.

In summary, I urge the defeat of this amendment for health reasons and for fiscal reasons.

Madam Speaker, due to my train being delayed, I did not make it to the Capitol in time for votes this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 599 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 600.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which for the first time conditions emergency, essential aid to Israel on cuts to the domestic budget. The majority is attempting to divide Congress for purely partisan gain. It is despicable.

I stand here as a proud progressive Zionist. Support for Israel is built into my DNA. My wife lived in Israel. I have family in Israel. I was horrified by the events of October 7. It was a traumatic moment for Israel and a traumatic moment for the global Jewish community. I remain committed to doing whatever I can to support our ally Israel in its fight against the terrorist organization Hamas, especially since Hamas' statement last night that they would repeat the October 7 massacre over and over until Israel is no more.

I look forward to voting for President Biden's complete supplemental military and humanitarian aid package, including strategic and military assistance to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, and humanitarian assistance to Gaza, Israel, and Ukraine to deal with extreme crisis conditions caused by two major wars.

Today's vote is not about supporting Israel. It is not about global security. Rather, today's vote is on a divisive political maneuver that leads us down a dark road. It sets a dangerous precedent, pitting our national security and support for democratic allies against domestic expenditures. When Israel needs more funds, will we have to find another offset?

It must be repeated. This so-called offset will actually increase the deficit, all while allowing the wealthiest to cheat on their taxes. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made clear, it would add $12.5 billion to the deficit in the next decade.

I will proudly support emergency supplemental aid to Israel. I look forward to voting for that bill, but the bill we are voting on today is just a partisan game. It is an insult to Jewish Americans, and it is an insult to our ally Israel.

The pro-Israel vote is a ``no.'' I will proudly vote ``no,'' reject this unprecedented partisanship, and wait for a genuine bill to aid Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate October as National Spina Bifida Awareness Month, to recognize the approximately 166,000 Americans living with this condition, and to draw attention to the critical challenges we must address to ensure that each and every one of these individuals can achieve their full human potential and have the quality of life they deserve.

According to the Spina Bifida Association of America, Spina Bifida is the most common permanently disabling birth defect compatible with life. Literally translated as ``split spine,'' Spina Bifida occurs when a baby's neural tube fails to develop or close properly. Typically occurring within the first 28 days of pregnancy while the neural tube is forming, Spina Bifida often develops before a woman even knows she is pregnant.

Children born with Spina Bifida typically undergo dozens of surgeries before they reach the age of 18. And during their lifetime, someone with Spina Bifida will face at least a $1 million in medical expenses, including multiple surgeries.

Despite these challenges--and thanks to advances in research and medicine, along with policies supportive of children with this condition--nearly two-thirds of Americans currently living with Spina Bifida have made it to adulthood. And while these strides are certainly worth celebrating, people with Spina Bifida--particularly adults-- continue to face a crisis of care that could be largely prevented with the right resources and policies.

While we have a coordinated system of care designed to treat children with Spina Bifida in the U.S., there is no equivalent for adults. The result is that adults face a ``care cliff'' and enter a very fractured medical system where they are unable to find physicians willing or even knowledgeable enough to provide treatment, as Spina Bifida is stil largely taught in medical schools as a pediatric condition and education has failed to keep pace with the rapid rise in the adult Spina Bifida population. Thousands of adults are left with few options other than to seek care in the emergency room or continue to see their pediatric care team until insurance will no longer cover their care because of their age. And to make matters worse, many of these adults rely on Medicaid as their insurance provider, so even if they have the means to travel to an adult specialist, if they are located in another state--as is often the case--their coverage is denied. Across the country, there are more than 100 pediatric clinics devoted to caring for children with Spina Bifida. There are only 20 whose focus is on adults.

At the federal level, we could make dramatic improvements in the ability of adults with Spina Bifida to access quality care by increasing the funding of the CDC's National Spina Bifida Program--the only federal program tasked with improving the care and outcomes for people living with Spina Bifida. In 2008, the Spina Bifida Program created a National Spina Bifida Patient Registry to collect the scientific data needed to evaluate existing medical services for Spina Bifida patients, and to provide clinicians, researchers, patients, and families, a window into what care models are effective and what treatments are not making a measurable difference. Building on this in 2014, the Spina Bifida Program funded the development of a Spina Bifida Collaborative Care Network to identify and to disseminate best practices for the care of people with Spina Bifida at all ages. However, with only $7.5 million in annual funding, there are only 11,000 patients in the national registry, limiting the ability of medical professionals to glean knowledge that would advance research in areas critical to improving quality of life. Even modest increases to this funding would make an enormous difference.

Additionally, we should urge NIH to work collaboratively across their many divisions to better understand Spina Bifida. As Spina Bifida can affect every organ and every system in the human body, a collaborative effort undertaken by NIH could result in research that would lead to better care for both this generation and future generations of Spina Bifida patients. Moreover, the new designation of those with disabilities as a health disparity creates a new opportunity to harness federal resources for the Spina Bifida community by ensuring their representation in NIH research and thereby recognizing those with this complex condition in a new and critical light.

We are so fortunate today that our country is benefiting from the talent and contributions of the first generation of adults living with Spina Bifida. Today, I honor and celebrate all of them, along with their care partners, and also remember those we have lost to this condition. I urge my colleagues to not only increase funding for the National Spina Bifida Program, but to work together so that these Americans receive the care and treatment all of us want for our families and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Honorable Cynthia Doty, long time resident of the Upper West Side, political activist, and Democratic District Leader, who passed away in Manhattan at the age of 72 on July 17, 2023.

I first met Cynthia 30 years ago working in local Democratic politics. I worked alongside her former boss Assemblymember Ed Sullivan in the New York State Assembly. Cynthia served 9 years as his Legislative Associate and Special Assistant. In Albany, she drafted legislation and negotiated budgets. In the district, she advocated on behalf of thousands of constituents to protect their housing and deliver needed services.

Cynthia was a major force in the Three Parks Independent Democrats political club and served as its President and as District Leader. Cynthia was kind, honest, and skilled at her position, and was both respected and beloved within the community. She was extremely reliable--if she said she was going to get something done, it would always get done--and she was a gracious host to me and others who visited her political club frequently. Under her leadership, the club members were very active in gathering petition signatures and mobilizing the vote in our area for countless elected officials at all levels of politics from District Leader to Congressman, Senator, and President. Cynthia and her club did the work to help get Democrats elected across the country--not just in New York--and organized bus trips to Connecticut and Pennsylvania to get out the votes. She ran phone banks that reached voters across the country and was always finding ways for volunteers to get involved and fight for causes they believed in. She was my guest at both inaugurations of President Obama and frequently attended marches and protests on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. She opposed the war in Iraq, supported a woman's right to choose, and defended LGBTQ+ rights. She supported community farms and was a member of a CSA (community supported agriculture) where she enjoyed volunteering.

Cynthia was born into a Democratic family in Philadelphia in 1951, where she developed her progressive principles and a deep commitment to public service. Cynthia went to public school, co-chaired the racial justice committee at her college, and led several college groups to Washington to protest the Vietnam War. Her parents were active in politics--her father, Ethan Allen Doty, served as a judge for over 40 years and was a leading figure in the Democratic reform movement. Her mother, Beatrice Graham Doty, was a Democratic State Committeewoman. Her brothers, Ed Doty and Warren Doty, both served in elected positions in Pelham, New York and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts respectively.

Cynthia was not only into politics. She spent 20 years as a theatrical costume designer in major productions that appeared on Broadway, at Lincoln Center, and at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. She worked in film on The Wiz with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross, in opera with the 3 tenors--Jose Carreras, Luciano Pavarotti, and Placido Domingo, and on Broadway in the production of ``On Your Toes''. After many of her friends passed away due to the AIDS epidemic, Cynthia was moved to return to community service and work for social justice.

It was her passion for justice and her willingness to fight for what she believed in that helped her inspire others to participate in the political process and be motivated to go out and vote.

It is entirely fitting that she ended her political career as the Manhattan Deputy Chief Clerk at the New York City Board of Elections. In that role, she oversaw a vast operation of election officials responsible for processing ballots during several tumultuous changes in New York State election law. She oversaw ``early voting'' efforts that allow people to vote before election day and efforts to ensure absentee or vote by mail ballots were processed properly during the COVID-19 epidemic. She helped ensure polling places were open and accessible and people knew where and how to vote.

In, perhaps, her last major election, she was involved in processing my own re-election in a contested primary in Manhattan. She was the consummate professional and made sure the election was carried out without controversy. Too often we take for granted the work people like Cynthia do to help our communities, but we would be remiss if we did not honor and thank her and her team for a job well done.

I enjoyed working with Cynthia over the past 30 to 40 years. Her contributions to her community knew no end. The people of Manhattan's Upper West Side will miss her deeply but know that we will continue to carry out the work that she cared about so deeply. We will continue to work for social justice, environmental justice, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and health care for all. I thank her for her years of service. May she rest in peace. And may her memory be a blessing to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize lifelong New Yorker, political power broker, former New York Lieutenant Governor, and dear friend and mentor of mine, Richard Ravitch, on the occasion of his passing on Sunday, June 25, 2023, at the age of 89. I am proud to be joined today to remember Richard by Representatives Daniel Goldman, Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff, Patrick Ryan, Nydia Velazquez, Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, and Joseph Morelle.

The son of a Russian Jewish immigrant, Richard was born in Manhattan in 1933. He attended Oberlin College and transferred to Columbia College, earning a bachelor's degree in history in 1955. Richard continued his education, graduating from the Yale University School of Law in 1958. After graduation, Richard served active duty in the United States Army during the Berlin Wall Crisis in 1962.

Richard took the helm of his family's construction company, HRH Construction Corporation, in the 1960s, developing landmark buildings such as Waterside Plaza and Citicorp Center. An early advocate for integrated, affordable housing, Richard partnered with Bayard Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph on the first de-segregated housing project in Washington, D.C.

A successful businessman, Richard was recruited to help halt the financial collapse of New York's Urban Development Corporation in 1975. Shortly after, Richard chaired the Metropolitan Transportation Authority from 1979 through 1983, advocating for a tax increase to generate greater revenue and created a $8.5 billion financing plan to revive the mass transit system. He also served as the President of the Player Relations Committee for Major League Baseball, working as the chief negotiator for the league.

Richard's innovative solutions in New York earned him an appointment as the state's Lieutenant Governor by David A. Paterson in 2009. In 2011, Richard formed the State Budget Crisis Task Force with former Federal Reserve Chair, Paul Volcker, to draw attention to the financial vulnerabilities that state governments may possess. This work resulted in his selection as an advisor to the Governor of Michigan during Detroit's economic rebound in 2019.

He believed in the power of information and helped create a boot camp for mid-career journalists at the City University of New York's School of Journalism. These are just a few examples of how, for over 40 years, Richard served the public and left a physical and financial imprint on the residents of New York.

Though Richard was never elected to an official position, he played an integral role in maintaining the stability of numerous landmark institutions. He did not believe politics to be a zero-sum game, and saw it was an opportunity to uplift entire communities. He is preceded in death by his son, Steven, and survived by his wife, Kathleen, and children Joe, Michael, Liz, Carrie, and Laura, and 13 grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to recognize the passing of Jonathan Cuneo, a champion of consumer rights and a longtime friend of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

After earning his BA at Columbia University and his law degree at Cornell, Jon clerked for Judge Edward Tamm of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In 1981, after a stint working for the Federal Trade Commission, Jon joined the Judiciary Committee as counsel to the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law.

Under Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey, Jon proved himself a trusted advisor on questions of antitrust law and consumer safety. He helped to guide the Committee through its consideration of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and he conducted a wide-ranging investigation of the insurance industry. He was still a young man when he served here, but already Jon was making valuable contributions to the important work of protecting American consumers and small business from large corporate interests.

Jon founded his private practice in 1988, and from there he led several ground-breaking civil actions in service of that mission. In the ``Joe Camel'' case, argued in California state courts and successfully settled in 1997, Jon and his team revealed that the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's advertising campaign was specifically targeting underage children with its promotional cartoon character. For his role in the case, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) called Jon a ``real American hero.''

On behalf of thousands of defrauded investors in Enron Corp., Jon recovered more than $7 billion in federal court in 2009. It remains the largest settlement of its kind. Apart from his successful private practice, Jon co-founded the Committee to Support Antitrust Laws, the American Antitrust Institute, and the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys. His commitment to justice and safety for all Americans was equal to none.

And as I recall Jon's wide-ranging and successful legal career, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly struck by the lifelong friendship he forged with my predecessor, the late Chairman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan. Chairman Conyers trusted Jon like few others. On issues like consumer safety, corporate accountability, and access to the courts, the 2 were partners, both dedicated to helping the most vulnerable Americans find justice wherever it could be found.

We on the Judiciary Committee will remember Jon fondly. May his memory be a blessing to the friends and loved ones he leaves behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 111, the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023.

This simple but important legislation would require our regulatory agencies to provide a summary in no more than 100 words and in plain language of proposed rules on Regulations.gov, thus providing the American public with more transparency and easy understanding of new rules and regulations.

The Administrative Procedure Act already requires that the public be informed and have the chance to provide feedback to our agencies on the rules that they are contemplating.

This bill, though, would bring a new level of transparency to our agencies' hard work by giving the public a simple and easy-to- understand summary of possible new rules that might affect them or their business.

I also commend this bill's sponsors for requiring that the summary is made available online. Transparency and accessibility must go hand in hand.

This legislation has already passed the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it and send it to the President for his signature.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation that will provide transparency to the regulatory process. I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the so-called Separation of Powers Restoration Act would completely upend the administrative process by eliminating judicial deference to agencies and by requiring Federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis.

More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, that courts must give ``considerable weight'' to an agency's construction of a statute it administers. This makes sense, because while Congress sets broad policies, we delegate authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft technical regulations ourselves, and we rely on these agencies to carry out the policies we enact.

Under the Chevron doctrine, courts respect the careful process undertaken by the dedicated professionals at our Federal agencies, many of whom who have decades of experience and vast technical expertise.

Courts give deference to an agency's interpretation of its statutory authority if the interpretation is determined to be reasonable. The Chevron doctrine has been the ruling precedent for judicial review of agency decisions for decades. But this legislation would do away with this longstanding precedent--a move that would throw uncertainty into the entire rulemaking process.

It would also empower judges to completely override the determination of agency experts, substituting their own judgment regardless of their comparative lack of technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter for the carefully crafted and scientifically based decisions made by agencies.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the party that rails against what it calls judicial activism to support legislation that is the very embodiment of the judicial activism.

This legislation would also make the Federal rulemaking process even more time consuming and costly than it already is, forcing agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations in order to withstand judicial scrutiny, which would further delay the finalization of critical lifesaving regulations.

These are regulations that protect the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we consume, and the safety of the products we use. But this legislation is just the latest step in the Republican's decades-long assault on the regulatory process, trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the

ability to issue regulations that protect public health and safety, regulations whose benefits consistently outweigh their cost, often by many multiples.

Slowing down the rulemaking process for these vital health and safety protections would put the lives of Americans at greater risk. By eliminating judicial deference to agencies, this bill would empower the courts to make public policy from the bench, ignoring the careful consideration and technical expertise of executive agencies.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two letters: The first from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which includes more than 160 diverse labor, consumer, public health, food safety, financial reform, faith, environmental, and scientific integrity groups; and another letter from the Earthjustice organization.

Coalition for

Sensible Safeguards,

June 5, 2023.

Dear Representative: The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards

(CSS), which includes more than 160 diverse labor, consumer,

public health, food safety, financial reform, faith,

environmental, and scientific integrity groups representing

millions of Americans, strongly opposes the Separation of

Powers Restoration Act, H.R. 288.

Congress should be looking for ways to strengthen our

country's regulatory system by identifying gaps and

instituting new safeguards for the public. Unfortunately,

this legislation does the opposite by placing even more

obstacles before agencies as they work to provide new public

health, safety, and financial security protections for the

public.

The legislation will make our system of regulatory

safeguards weaker by enabling judicial policymaking at the

expense of agency expertise and congressional authority,

thereby resulting in unpredictable outcomes and regulatory

uncertainty for all stakeholders. If passed, H.R. 288 would

prevent many critical updates to public protections,

especially those that ensure clean air and water, safe food

and consumer products, safe workplaces, and a stable,

prosperous economy.

This problematic legislation attempts to reverse a

fundamental and well-settled legal principle that has long

effectively guided our regulatory system and provided a vital

check on judicial overreach. It strives to abolish judicial

deference to agencies' statutory interpretations in

rulemaking by requiring a court to decide all relevant

questions of law de nova, including all questions concerning

the interpretation of constitutional, statutory, and

regulatory provisions of final agency actions. Such deference

was established as bedrock administrative law by the Supreme

Court in the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense

Council and came to be referred to as Chevron deference.

Chevron deference has been upheld by hundreds of federal

courts since and has been endorsed by both conservative and

liberal Supreme Court justices and federal court judges.

In practice, abolishing Chevron deference will make the

current problems in our country's regulatory process much

worse in several ways. H.R. 288 will lead to even more

regulatory burdens and delays, particularly for those

``economically significant'' or ``major'' new rules that

provide the greatest benefits to the public's health, safety,

and financial security.

There is substantial academic literature and expert

consensus that intrusive judicial scrutiny of agency

rulemaking is one of the main drivers of regulatory

paralysis. Thus, increasing litigation risk for agency rules,

which is exactly what this bill would accomplish by spawning

hundreds of new lawsuits per year, will mean many more missed

congressional deadlines and a regulatory process that fails

to efficiently and effectively protect the public as Congress

requires. This further ``chilling'' of rulemaking will

certainly benefit special interests who will further pressure

regulators to carve out loopholes, weaken safety standards,

or otherwise obstruct new rulemakings with the greatly

enhanced threat of a lawsuit waiting in the wings.

Of even greater concern, eliminating judicial deference to

agency rulemaking would empower reviewing courts to

substitute their policy preferences for those of the agency.

One of the primary policy rationales for Chevron deference is

that agencies have considerable and superior expertise in the

regulatory sectors they oversee as compared to generalist

judges with far less expertise. Thus, H.R. 288 aims to make

it easier for the courts to overturn an agency's highly

technical, resource-intensive, and science-based rulemaking

without the expertise needed to make such determinations.

Further, abolishing Chevron review would actually undermine

congressional authority, an irony given the name of the bill.

De novo review of the scope and nature of congressional

grants of authority to agencies invites courts to create law,

ignore congressional intent, or both. In particular, it

defeats a deliberate choice by Congress to confer on agencies

the authority to resolve complex policy questions based on

their expertise and the public input they receive during the

rulemaking process.

Perhaps the most telling critique of attempts to replace

Chevron deference with de novo review comes from former

Justice Antonin Scalia, a vocal supporter of Chevron

deference during his career and an indication of just how

broad the support is for maintaining such deference. Writing

for the majority in City of Arlington v. F.C.C., Justice

Scalia argued that requiring that ``every agency rule must be

subjected to a de novo judicial determination'' without any

standards to guide this review would result in an ``open-

ended hunt for congressional intent,'' rendering ``the

binding effect of agency rules unpredictable and destroy the

whole stabilizing purpose of Chevron. The excessive agency

power that the dissent fears would be replaced by chaos.''

[City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874

(2013).]

H.R. 288 aims to achieve an unprecedented and dangerous

move away from traditional judicial deference towards a

system of enhanced powers for Big Business lobbyists and

weakened protections for consumers and working families. We

strongly urge opposition to the Separation of Powers

Restoration Act, H.R. 288.

Sincerely,

Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerously flawed legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

This legislation would allow judges to undermine and second-guess the carefully crafted and scientifically based regulations issued by our expert administrative agencies. It would upset decades of Supreme Court precedent just to further the extreme antiregulatory agenda of the Republican majority, which puts the health and safety of all Americans at risk.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Speaker, as agency heads have stated time and time again, guidance documents, general statements of policy, and other agency guidance do not have the force and effect of law, and the agencies do not take enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance.

This amendment would unnecessarily require judicial review, de novo or otherwise, of guidance documents that have not been interpreted by courts to be given the force of law.

Before I discuss how guidance documents and rules differ, let's take a minute to consider the pure breadth of materials this amendment would cover: interagency statements, bulletins, policy statements, questions and answers, frequently asked questions, statements of policy, and advisories.

Rules and guidance from agencies are not only given different weight in court, but they also are developed through entirely different processes. Rules are made under the Administrative Procedures Act and, thus, follow a structured process for soliciting public comments, the review of those comments, and the release of any final rule. Agency guidance documents, by contrast, are not made under the APA process. Guidance documents are not subject to public review and comment. When you consider the range of materials that falls under the category ``guidance,'' this, naturally, makes sense.

A frequently asked questions page on an agency website cannot and should not be placed in the same category as rules that undergo months and years of review and development. Not only is it wrong as a matter of law to conflate these two classes of documents, but it would also signal to the judiciary that Congress sees them on equal footing; that is, rules and guidance on equal footing, which would muddy the judicial review of agency action.

I imagine the amendment sponsor did not intend for her amendment to accidentally expand what kinds of instruction from agencies should be given the force of law by expanding the Separation of Powers Restoration Act in this fashion, but in any case, that is what this amendment would do.

If agency guidance were treated the same as a rule, as wrong as that might be, agencies would be chilled and warned against providing much- needed information to the individuals and businesses who seek more feedback on an agency's point of view. They would be very hesitant to answer questions on question lines.

Finally, as I noted in response to a similar amendment to the REINS Act yesterday, by requiring agency guidance documents to receive the same review as rules, this amendment would create confusion among businesses subject to oversight from our executive branch agencies as to how much weight they should give agency guidance.

Expanding this bill to also require any guidance the agency gives to businesses about how the rules will be enforced is a drastic expansion of the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and would ensure that agencies provide less guidance for businesses, thus creating more uncertainty for businesses.

This amendment is an overstep that would further stifle the work of our agencies. I, therefore, oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, judging from what the gentlewoman just said, the gentlewoman does not understand the process at all.

Courts do not enforce guidance, so we are not prohibiting them here from doing what they do not do to start with. Courts do not enforce guidance. Guidance simply tells people how the courts will enforce the rules promulgated by the agencies.

So to say that you can't have guidance is to say that people must act in ignorance and bet their businesses on what the agency will do without knowing it because the agency can't tell them. That is absurd.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman is accurate as to what SOPRA would do, and for all the reasons I stated before, it is a terrible bill, as terrible as REINS is. I am not going to repeat those arguments.

As to this amendment, I don't have to have practiced law recently. I know how to read a bill. There are lawyers on my staff who know how to read a bill and we know, as I said before, that courts don't enforce guidance. There is no such thing.

Guidance issued by agencies tells the courts how to interpret the rules promulgated by those agencies. That is a simple fact. It is not debatable.

Similarly, to have an amendment that says there shall be no guidance is to have an amendment that says businesses should operate in the dark and bet their businesses on what an agency might do. That is ridiculous and harmful to business, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as I urge them to oppose the bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment requires the Comptroller General to include an estimate of a rule's effect on inflation in the congressional review report.

I oppose this amendment because it requires an estimate of a rule's effect on inflation, which would require the Comptroller General to speculate, based on limited evidence, how rules that likely have little to do with the economy would affect inflation.

The GAO has already reported to Congress that they would be unable to assess a rule's impact on the economy with the limited information available, and in any case, the 15 days provided for major rule reports do not allow for the GAO to make a determination on a rule's effect even if they had the necessary information.

Adding more requirements for various officials to estimate a rule's effect on the economy when they lack the necessary time and information to provide a concrete answer will not heighten the efficacy of this bill but will, rather, create more unnecessary estimates for Congress to weigh in their review of agency rules.

In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has previously noted that estimating the total cost of regulations is inherently difficult and that such estimates of the cost of regulation should be viewed with a great deal of caution. Like the OMB, CRS has noted that there are significant methodological challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules.

I oppose this amendment because it focuses only on the cost of regulatory protections while completely ignoring the monetary benefits of those critical rules and because it asks the Comptroller General to do what is impossible to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is very nice to say that we should examine the inflation that has occurred and the spending that has occurred, but that is not what the amendment calls for.

The amendment requires the Comptroller General to include an estimate of a rule's effect, a rule that presumably hasn't yet been issued, on inflation in the congressional review report.

Now, I stated before why it is impossible to do that, why the CRS and the OMB say that there are significant methodological challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules. Therefore, we shouldn't be asking the impossible. It certainly has nothing to do with looking at prior expenditures or prior borrowing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, as I noted in our debate on the REINS Act last night, the REINS Act is aimed at undermining and frustrating the purpose of government by grinding Federal rulemaking to a halt.

By lowering the threshold of this dangerous bill from $100 million to $50 million, this amendment would make the REINS Act even more destructive.

I accordingly oppose this amendment for the same reasons I oppose the REINS Act at large. By requiring Congress to vote to approve and for the President to sign a resolution of approval for any major rule from the executive branch, we will be putting our constituents in harm's way.

Just last week, we saw how a small faction of far-right Republicans can hold the legislative process in the House hostage, all to make a point to the Speaker.

I oppose this amendment and the efforts of the majority to make the functions of government more political and subject to the whims of individual Members of Congress.

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

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

The central fallacy of the REINS Act that I noted last night is that Congress can possibly legislate on all the things, on all the regulations that we have. There are thousands of regulations, and there must be for the safety of our people.

How many parts per billion of arsenic in the atmosphere are safe? Is it 15? Is it 20? Is it 200? No one in this body has the expertise to say that, but there are experts in the agencies who are trained to do that.

How much exposure to radiation from x-rays is safe for an individual? We are not competent to decide that. That is why Congress has delegated over the years these decisions to agencies to make on our behalf. We write the general law, and we delegate the general power to decide these specific questions, and they do.

The central fallacy of the REINS Act is that it would make us try to make decisions in all of this. That is bad enough. The REINS Act now says you have to have Congress vote on every decision over $100 million. That is bad enough. This amendment would make it over $50 million, which makes it even worse.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment as I oppose the act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has previously noted that estimating the total cost of regulations is inherently difficult and that such estimates of the cost of regulation should be viewed with a great deal of caution.

Like the OMB, CRS has noted that there are significant methodological challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules.

I rise in opposition to this amendment as it requires the OMB to make a specific determination of a rule's impact when they already say it is difficult to make an estimate of the impact.

This amendment requires the OMB to do the impossible, to make a specific finding when OMB and CRS have already said that even estimates are very difficult and inherently unreliable. To request a finding is to request the impossible, and, therefore, I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I have expressed my opposition to the entire REINS Act because, as I said before, we are not competent. Congress cannot possibly decide how many parts per billion of arsenic is safe in the air for people to breathe or how many rads of radiation are safe to have in x-rays before it causes cancer. We don't know that. That is why we write general laws, and in those laws, we have delegated the power to make specific rules to agencies who are staffed by thousands of experts in each particular field. That is why the REINS Act is so pernicious, because it would stop this. It would make us make those decisions. We have no competence to make those decisions.

The REINS Act is bad enough, but this amendment, which says that OIRA must issue a finding for each rule determining whether the rule has a significant economic impact, given that OMB and CRS have both said that it is very difficult to make even estimates, you can't make a finding. A finding implies exactitude. Given the fact that even the estimates are very difficult and unreliable, a finding is impossible. The amendment should not require that someone do the impossible. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is unnecessary. Congress already has many ways to control agency rulemaking. We can delegate authority to agencies with specificity, thus limiting the scope of an agency's authority. We can impose restrictions on rulemaking through appropriations. We can influence rulemaking through oversight activities. If all of these measures fail, we also have the blunt tool of the Congressional Review Act.

Therefore, we do not need the oversight the REINS Act offers, but we also do not need to open the door to revising rules that have been in place for years. Doing so would create uncertainty for businesses who have adapted to rules that were passed years ago and continue in force.

The current Congressional Review Act only allows Congress to roll back rules within a short time period. The CRA was drafted with a short period of review intentionally, and to open the door to reviewing years of rules would be a huge expansion of the CRA, and it would create too much uncertainty for businesses and for all other economic actors.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman said that rules tell Americans what kind of cars they can drive. No, they do not. They do provide for the safety of the cars that Americans drive. They provide for all of the safety mechanisms that must be in the cars.

Again, Congress does not have the competence to know what safety mechanisms ought to be in the cars. That is why we have delegated rulemaking authority to agencies which have experts on how many parts-- I keep using this example--how many parts per billion of arsenic can be in the air, what safety measures must be in a car, et cetera.

The REINS Act violates this and is very dangerous to the American people. This amendment makes it even worse by essentially saying every rule has to be reviewed in 5 years by Congress. Congress can't possibly review all of these rules.

Therefore, this amendment will make Americans even less safe in many ways, and I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have a very clear difference of perspectives here. The gentleman talks about the right to life. I talk about the right to freedom. The right to reproductive freedom is a core human right that is protected by our Constitution.

The majority of the work our agencies do has little to do with the private decisions women make with the consultation of their doctors. In an effort to continue the culture wars, my colleagues have added this purposefully politicized amendment to signal that they, contrary to their supposed beliefs, do think that Big Government is good and that Big Government's reach extends to a woman's private decisions about what to do with her body.

All the rhetoric about the REINS Act is that Big Government is bad, that we should have less government. That is all the rhetoric of the Republican Party, generally. Yet, here they are, saying that government should reach into the private decisions of a woman with respect to her own body that were made in consultation with her doctor or perhaps with her husband or whomever. It is up to her, and government shouldn't determine her decision for her.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and the Republicans' crusade to create more laws about what we can do with our bodies and our reproductive decisions because government should not be in the business of dictating private decisions to private people.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party claims to be the party of freedom, but not when it comes to women and the decisions they make with respect to their own bodies. It is then the party of government repression and dictation.

You cannot do what you decide to do. You cannot do what you think is best. You must do what government thinks is best--namely, not have an abortion.

I proudly support the right to abortion. I believe abortion should be safe and legal. Whether it is rare is up to the individuals. It is a personal freedom. The Democratic Party supports personal freedom, unlike the Republican Party, which while claiming to support personal freedom seeks to repress it.

They are a party that says you cannot decide what to do with your own body, a party that says you cannot read what we don't want you to read, a party that says: Let's ban books. Let's ban plays. Let's take them out of the school libraries and out of the public libraries.

Some freedom.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. It is another example of the Republican Party's attempt to suppress freedom, and it must not pass.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chairwoman, while the estimate of the economic impact of any rule by the GAO would be highly speculative and should be considered with caution--as the GAO itself said--this rule would at least lessen the harm that this dangerous bill would effect.

Although this amendment does not cure all the ills in the REINS Act, the amendment would at least reduce the number of rules REINS would apply to, and, therefore, I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment amends the definition of rule to include interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and all other guidance documents.

However, guidance documents from agencies are not given the force of law in court. Expanding this bill to also require any guidance the agency gives to businesses about how the rules will be enforced is a gross expansion of the Congressional Review Act and would ensure that agencies provide less guidance for business thus creating more uncertainty. More uncertainty in business stifles business.

Madam Chair, you want to know the environment you are operating in if you are a businessperson.

This amendment is an overstep and would stifle further the work of our agencies and would make it much more difficult to conduct business in this country.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.

Madam Chair, at the risk of sounding repetitive from what I have said in several other amendments, Congress is not capable of making the judgments--the thousands and millions of judgments--on specifics like how many parts of arsenic per billion in the atmosphere is safe? What should the tolerance of a braking system in the automobile be? How many units of radiation can a person tolerate that is worth risking in an MRI or a CAT scan?

That is why Congress has delegated to agencies, which we created, the power to make these decisions which we are not competent to make, the thousands and thousands of specific decisions on scientific and other questions; mostly scientific questions.

The REINS Act is a very bad piece of legislation because it would say that the agencies can't do this, that Congress must do it, and we don't have the capacity. We don't have the time, and we don't have the knowledge.

How many people here know how many units of radiation are safe?

How many hearings must be conducted for the thousands or even millions of decisions that must be made each year?

The REINS Act is a bad idea. This amendment, in effect, expands the REINS Act to include interpretive rules and general statements of policy. It makes it even more impossible. Therefore, it makes a very bad bill worse, and I oppose it and urge its defeat.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, the REINS Act would already frustrate the point of government by grinding the critical actions of our agencies to a halt.

Why, Mr. Roy--and I presume the majority generally--feels the need to also include efforts to protect some of the most vulnerable among us is beyond me.

America has a long history of discrimination, and efforts to include these historically marginalized groups should be celebrated and supported, not subjected to further scrutiny by Congress just because the majority disagrees with supporting these individuals.

May I remind you that we represent all the people, and amendments like this undermine our service to our constituents.

I would ask, why should we tell hospitals not to perform certain medical procedures? If gender-affirming surgery is necessary for the patient and the doctor says it is, why shouldn't the VA hospital provide such surgery?

We do not, I presume, want to say it is because we want to discriminate against transgender people, or we want to discriminate against gay or lesbian people. I hope that is not what we are saying, but that is what this amendment seems to do.

I oppose this amendment because it goes against our notions of equality and our notions of fairness.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman says: Why don't we legislate on some of this? We have.

Might I remind the gentleman that last year we passed the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying the rights of two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other because we respect freedom?

The amendment does not respect freedom. The amendment, by its description by its sponsor, would say, no, we don't want to do gender- affirming surgery. We don't want to perform surgery that people need because we disapprove of them. That is wrong.

The REINS Act is a very bad act for all the reasons I have stated many times already today. I am not going to repeat them. This amendment would make it worse because diversity, equity, and inclusion executive orders are things to be celebrated, not things to decry.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a list of organizations opposing

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, yet again, we have another amendment aimed at dividing us instead of allowing us to serve the people who elected us.

Vaccinations help us eradicate terrible diseases, like smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, rubella, and on and on and on.

Adding this amendment would not help us govern. It will not help us serve our constituents. Instead, it would just serve to undermine necessary health and safety rules.

We here in this Chamber cannot know what contagious diseases we may face in the future, and I oppose any amendment that would undermine our ability to protect our constituents.

Madam Chair, before I was allowed to go to school--I won't tell you how many years ago that was--I had to be vaccinated for diphtheria, for whopping cough, for the diseases that they then knew how to vaccinate against. Nothing has changed. We are to vaccinate people to prevent diseases and pandemics.

The fact of the matter is that people should be required to be vaccinated, especially a nurse, a nurse who is dealing with patients, who is breathing on those patients. She can transmit the disease. So certainly, she should be required to be vaccinated because the vaccination not only protects her, but it also protects against transmission of the disease to the next person. The healthcare worker certainly ought to be required to be vaccinated.

When we have a pandemic like the COVID-19 pandemic that we had, 2- year-olds should have been required to wear masks. It would be child abuse for parents not to do that because there was no vaccination available for 2-year-olds. The only way to protect them against COVID was to have them wear masks. These mandates are meant to protect the public's health and safety.

God willing we won't have another pandemic such as we had, but in the future, we will be required, I presume, to be vaccinated against major threatening diseases. That is right. To expand the major rule to include any increase in mandatory vaccinations is intended to prevent mandatory vaccinations. That is a crime against the public health.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, why the COVID-19 vaccine should be more politicized than any other vaccine, I don't know. I don't understand that.

And why the COVID-19 vaccine is considered by the gentleman to be politicized, I don't understand that either.

It is just another vaccine. It is another vaccine for a very raging pandemic we just had and which is hopefully over--although people are still dying of COVID-19. People should get vaccinated against it, if they haven't been vaccinated.

But the REINS Act would make it much more difficult to require or even to drop the requirement for vaccination, and this amendment would specifically make it more difficult.

That is ridiculous from a public health point of view, therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would ignore the considered judgment of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and make stabilizing braces, a favorite tool of mass shooters, widely available without a background check.

Today is one of those clarifying moments when the priorities of the Republican majority are on clear display. Instead of taking up legislation to reduce gun violence in America, we are advancing a bill to ensure that more deadly weapons are in the hands of mass shooters in this country. What a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 100 Americans every day. It changes how safe we feel in our schools and in our houses of worship. It reduces vibrant cities to somber headlines. It takes our loved ones, old and young, and leaves us with another anniversary of lives cut short and a community forever changed.

Today, rather than stand up against gun violence, the majority plans to pass this bill so that they can yet again stand with the gun industry.

Rather than support the law enforcement officers who are on the front lines of protecting our communities, the majority is attempting to weaken law enforcement by rolling back a rule created by the ATF meant to protect us from dangerous weapons. The ATF is the law enforcement agency tasked with keeping guns out of the wrong hands and keeping our gun laws in line with congressional intent through rulemaking.

In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, creating additional requirements to own certain especially dangerous firearms, like short-barreled rifles, which were widely used by violent criminals. Congress included short-barreled rifles because they combine the firepower of a rifle with the concealability of a smaller gun.

In recent years, the gun industry discovered a way to circumvent the restrictions of the National Firearms Act by selling stabilizing braces, an accessory that allows a pistol to be fired from the shoulder, turning it into a deadly yet concealable short-barreled rifle.

In 2020, under the Trump administration, the ATF concluded that stabilizing braces were being widely used to create short-barreled rifles and published guidance regarding their use. House Republicans cried foul. Just 4 days after the guidance was published, 90 House Republicans sent a letter to the ATF and the DOJ expressing their opposition, and just a few days later, the guidance was withdrawn.

A few months later, under the Biden administration, the ATF revived its efforts to regulate stabilizing braces and published the final rule in January to ensure that our laws stay in line with the intent of Congress, dating all the way back to 1934, when Congress decided that deadly, concealable short-barreled rifles should be subject to heightened regulation.

Republicans will stop at nothing to block the ATF from taking this simple lifesaving measure, even though they know that blocking this rule could have deadly consequences.

Mass shooters used guns with stabilizing braces to kill 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; to kill 10 people, including a responding officer, in a grocery store in Boulder in 2021; to kill 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs last year; and just this past March, to kill 6 people, including 3 children, in a school in Nashville, the nineteenth school shooting this year.

The Nashville shooting occurred the day before the Judiciary Committee initially planned to mark up this resolution, so the majority, apparently sensitive to the optics, if not the substance, of marking up this resolution, postponed the markup.

Three weeks later, they decided that enough time had passed since three more families woke up without the child they had taken to school, and they were ready to advance a bill to enable more mass shooters to inflict death and destruction in our communities. I guess they thought that we had forgotten the lives lost in that terrible tragedy. We will never forget them or the countless others who lose their lives to gun violence every day.

Now, today, the majority seeks to pass this bill on the House floor, despite the deadly consequences. How many more lives will be lost because Republicans refuse to acknowledge that these weapons are a favorite of mass shooters for their ability to make a gun both deadly and concealable? How many more people have to die before Republicans will value the lives of our children over the profits of the gun industry?

During the last Congress, Democrats put forth a range of solutions to prevent gun violence, to support law enforcement, and to solve violent crimes, but our colleagues across the aisle continue to push for unfettered access to every firearm and accessory imaginable.

As Republicans continue to seek freedom from gun regulation, we will continue to seek communities free from gun violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly go home and explain to the people why we support the ATF's absolutely necessary actions to defend the safety of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that the cause of gun violence in this country is homicidal maniacs. We have 78 times as much gun violence per unit of population than any other country in the world.

Does the gentleman think that we are 78 times as mentally ill and that we have 78 times as many gun maniacs in this country as anywhere else per unit of population?

That is a slander on the American people.

The obvious cause is we have guns run amok.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have claimed this rule affects forearm braces. It does not. If a disabled veteran needs a forearm brace to shoot a pistol, he or she can still get one without registering it.

The only firearms affected by this rule are those that have a brace that is ``designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.'' If a veteran or anyone else wants a covered brace, all they have to do is register it. It was even free to do so until June 1. The ATF waived the fee to encourage compliance.

All this rule does is close a loophole so that all short-barreled rifles are subjected to the commonsense requirements of the National Firearms Act: Registration and a background check.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

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

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

We have heard the majority claim over and over that this rule is going to come as a surprise to the gun industry and to those who have purchased stabilizing braces. This is simply not true.

There are dozens of videos online of people promoting the use of braces to create short-barreled rifles that circumvent the National Firearms Act. One brace promoter even said the resulting short-barreled rifle could easily fit into a briefcase or a backpack.

Let's be clear. The majority is defending the widespread availability without a background check of a brace that allows more rifles to easily fit into a backpack. The majority has seen these promotional videos. We watched

them in our hearing and in our markup, yet they continue to seek to invalidate this rule and claim it will come as a surprise.

The fact is that those who profit from the sale of these braces have long known that they were circumventing the law. The ATF wrote to one brace manufacturer multiple times over the last 10 years. In 2018, 5 years ago, the ATF, under President Trump, told the brace manufacturer that it was engaging in false advertising by claiming devices were ATF approved, when in fact the ATF had not even evaluated those devices.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 18, 2018, letter from the ATF to SB Tactical, a brace manufacturer, stating that they must cease the false advertisement of products as ATF approved when they had not even been evaluated, much less approved by ATF.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,

Martinsburg, WV.

SB Tactical,

Saint Petersburg, FL.

Dear SB Tactical: This letter is to inform SB Tactical that

certain products currently marketed and sold by SB Tactical

have not been evaluated nor approved by the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms

Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB). It has come to

the attention of FTISB that all of SB Tactical ``braces'' are

being marketed as evaluated and approved by ATF as ``pistol

stabilizing braces,'' although, in most cases no evaluations

or classification have ever occurred.

FTISB has found the following statement on the boxes of

unevaluated SB Tactical models:

ATF Compliant--ATF has reviewed this product and determined

that attaching a Pistol Stabilizing Brace to a firearm does

not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the

firearm to NFA control.

To date, FTISB has evaluated only two SB15 Tactical

submissions: the SB15 brace and the MPX PSB brace. FTISB

approved both of these models for use as ``stabilizing

braces,'' and classified them as not designed or intended to

be used as shouldering devices. However, these

classifications were based on the samples as submitted. Any

change in the submitted design could change FTISB's

classification.

Currently, SB Tactical markets more than 20 different

designs of ``pistol stabilizing braces.'' While some of these

new models are similar to the original evaluated models,

several are advertised as being based off shoulder stock

designs. FTISB does not approve ``stabilizing braces'' which

are similar or based off shoulder stock designs.

These are the submitted SB Tactical braces approved by ATF:

SB15 (Original submission)

Mr. Speaker, the ATF, the agency specifically tasked with regulating dangerous weapons and keeping them out of the wrong hands, underwent a careful review process that began under the Trump administration.

The agency determined that gun owners were exploiting a loophole that allowed stabilizing braces to be used to assemble a short-barreled rifle without being subjected to the existing regulations for such highly dangerous weapons. The ATF then issued a rule, using the standard administrative process, to close this loophole and to protect our communities.

There should be nothing controversial about this rule, but Republicans want to overturn this sensible regulation and put more stabilizing braces on the streets and in the hands of more mass shooters.

I remind Members that mass shooters have already used stabilizing braces to kill 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; to kill 10 people, including a responding police officer, at a grocery store in Boulder in 2021; to kill 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs last year; and just a few months ago to kill 6 people, including 3 children, at a school in Nashville.

Once again, Republicans are putting the interests of the gun industry over the safety of their communities.

I urge all Members to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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.