Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes during the week of March 15, 2017 due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On March 15, 2017:

YEA for rollcall vote 159

YEA for rollcall vote 160

YEA for rollcall vote 161

On March 16, 2017:

YEA for rollcall vote 162

YEA for rollcall vote 163

YEA for rollcall vote 164

NAY for rollcall vote 165

NAY for rollcall vote 166

NAY for rollcall vote 167

YEA for rollcall vote 168

YEA for rollcall vote 169

On March 17, 2017:

YEA for rollcall vote 170

YEA for rollcall vote 171

YEA for rollcall vote 172

I was unable to attend votes during the week of March 27, 2017 due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On March 27, 2017:

YEA for rollcall vote 195

YEA for rollcall vote 196

March 28, 2017:

YEA for rollcall vote 197

YEA for rollcall vote 198

YEA for rollcall vote 199

YEA for rollcall vote 200

YEA for rollcall vote 201

YEA for rollcall vote 202

On March 29, 2017:

YEA for rollcall vote 203

YEA for rollcall vote 204

NAY for rollcall vote 205

YEA for rollcall vote 206

On March 30, 2017:

NAY for rollcall vote 207

YEA for rollcall vote 208

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 560, my bill to reauthorize limited commercial vehicle traffic along Route 209 through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Tomorrow marks 16 months during which uncertainty has reigned over this 21-mile stretch of road running through my district.

Over 30 years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania transferred Route 209, then a State road, to the National Park Service. As commercial vehicle traffic is banned on roads within our national parks, it would ultimately be restricted on this stretch of Route 209. But at that time, a 10-year exemption was made to support the local freight transport industry and because acceptable alternative routes were unavailable.

After multiple extensions, the most recent commercial vehicle authorization expired at the end of September 2015. To address the problem, county and township officials from the surrounding areas met with the National Park Service and my staff to negotiate a new plan. They recognized a continuing need to allow some commercial vehicles access and settled on the carefully crafted language we are considering today.

The work to produce this extension acknowledges the continued need of the employers, businesses, and homeowners in Pike and Monroe Counties. Unfortunately, although the House passed identical language in the 114th Congress and the Senate moved it to the floor, this important legislation failed to become law. The resulting uncertainty created hardship for families and businesses in the communities neighboring the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

The lack of access to this stretch of road has cast a cloud on a wide range of local businesses from heating fuel and package delivery to plumbers and electricians. Homeowners cannot access the services they need and countless jobs are in jeopardy. This is a critical piece of legislation for my constituents. We must pass it today and urge the Senate to act just as quickly.

I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Federal Lands Subcommittee Chairman McClintock, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support and work with my staff to bring this bill to the floor as quickly as possible.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act.

This bill represents a monumental opportunity for the American people. After 8 years of one new crushing regulatory burden after another, the time has come to finally free the American people and create a new future for our economy.

In 2017, regulatory burdens are at record levels. One recent analysis by the American Action Forum puts the cumulative paperwork burden on the American people at 11.5 billion hours.

How could any small business person or entrepreneur survive in the face of this monstrous web of regulation?

The short answer is that they cannot.

It is a fact seen across my district as I have talked to workers covering every industry or occupation imaginable. When I ask businessowners about their concerns, first and foremost, the greatest hardship they face is the burden of Federal regulation and red tape. Funds, which otherwise could be invested in new employees, training, or equipment, must be dedicated to the demands of faceless bureaucrats in D.C. This applies to plumbers as well as to farmers, manufacturers to home builders. The list of those affected is long and varied.

The simple truth is that the Obama administration's one-size-fits-all regulatory agenda has been a disaster for the American Dream, and we have seen over the past several months how disconnected it was from the wants and needs of Americans across the country.

In Congress, however, we have heard their pleas and have taken action in the early days of the 115th Congress. H.R. 5 is the third regulatory reform bill we have considered in 2 weeks. It represents our brightest opportunity to unleash innovation and investment so that American businesses, big and small, can create new futures.

I am also grateful that H.R. 5 includes my bill, the REVIEW Act. The REVIEW Act was featured as part of Speaker Ryan's A Better Way agenda and passed the House on a bipartisan basis last fall. It represents a simple premise: regulations should be narrowly tailored, and massive regulations deserve full and thorough scrutiny.

The REVIEW Act would mandate a stay of any high-impact, billion- dollar regulation while judicial review is underway. Historically, billion-dollar rules have been few and far between. In fact, only 26 have been put in place since 2006; but, in recent years, their frequency has grown along with the unprecedented reach of the regulatory state. In the past 8 years, an average of three per year have been put in place.

Their significance, however, lies in their impact on our country. These regulations are massive and have the potential to fundamentally and irreversibly change entire industries. If, later, judicial review finds the agency's reasoning to be legally unsound or contrary to the intent of Congress, the

compliance costs incurred--often meaning jobs that were lost--cannot be undone. The REVIEW Act provides an important check on regulatory largesse and is an important piece of this bill.

The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. It is time for us all to take our country and the economy in the right direction. The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the reforms that are necessary to get us there.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the core judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. The resulting legislation, rather than restore an adequate framework of checks and balances against agency overreach and abuse, would perpetrate and perpetuate features among the worst of our current, runaway regulatory system. We cannot complete true regulatory reform without restoring to the judicial branch the vigorous powers of judicial review the amendment would strike.

In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's critical rulemaking reforms all rules to reduce the incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory diseases in children and seniors.

All of us support the reduction of morbidity and mortality among children and seniors. Rules to advance these goals, done properly, contribute substantially to our Nation's health and well-being, but the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. It simply assures the agencies issuing these types of rules--and all agency rulemaking in general--will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less costly regulation and guidance when necessary.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the Constitution just like everyone else does, and primarily we, as congressmen and congresswomen, have

a responsibility to make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats who have no experience in a lot of the areas where they are making these laws.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Like the previous amendment, the gentleman's amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and core judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. Faced with a runaway administrative state, we must not gut the bill's crucial reinforcements of judicial checks and balances against agency overreach and abuse. For this reason alone, the amendment should be rejected.

In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's long-needed rulemaking reforms numerous types of food safety regulations. All of us support food safety. But the bill does nothing to frustrate the protection of food safety. In fact, it clearly calls upon regulatory agencies to achieve their statutory objectives in this and all areas. Beyond that, it simply ensures that agency rulemaking will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulations and produce smarter, less costly regulation and guidance when necessary.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my friend and NATO member. We have traveled together.

A lot of the delay now is because of the agencies and how long they take to make decisions. With the premise behind our bills combined, agencies come

up with an idea that they think will improve the quality of life, and that is what they should be doing. But then they immediately send it to us in the House, in Congress, and then we make the determination as to whether it is good law or it is bad law and apply it that way. We certainly have the time in the House, and I am sure the Senate has the time, too, to address these matters quickly and not delay it as long as the agency has been delaying making rules.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

This amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It, too, should be rejected for those reasons.

In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemakings reforms numerous types of rule related to employment and wages. But once again, the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. On the contrary, it would produce better rules, rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for job creation and higher wages. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I simply would add that I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

As far as the jobs increase, or lack thereof, that my colleague speaks of, we have had the slowest growth rate in jobs in the history of this country. There are millions of people that are unemployed that are not seeking unemployment benefits, and they are not taken into consideration in the unemployment rate because it is much higher than it is; and the mean family income is at a low as far back as 14 years ago.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Well, first of all, I would certainly enjoy working on job growth with the gentlewoman. We have worked on issues in the past.

But the gentlewoman forgets about the technology that has created jobs. People have to write those programs. People have to build that hardware. They have to come up with very intense, very intricate ways to make the machinery, continue updating the software. My daughter is a software major in college, and the jobs there are abundantly available.

So the jobs are there, but what I am hearing from people in my district and across the country is the regulations that have been imposed, not only by this administration but other administrations as well, are crushing particularly our small businesses.

So if we can step back and eliminate these job-crushing regulations and take into consideration the economics involved, we are going to create more jobs, we are going to protect people, and we are going to protect the health of people.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, like other carve-out amendments just offered, this amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review protections of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It should be rejected. We should not be settling for weak judicial review that produces rubber stamps of agency action. We should be voting for the strong judicial review reform in the bill that prevents judicial rubber stamps.

Beyond that, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms children's toys and product safety rules. But again, the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will produce better rules, rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for job creation and higher wages. Smarter rules are precisely what we need to protect children's health and safety, and more jobs and higher wages are what are needed to help families provide for their children.

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

Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the gentleman does not have the market cornered on worrying about the safety of our children. I think anybody in this room who has children has just as much concern for our children.

What his amendment does is gut--it guts--regulations, and what our amendments do--and the way we should be handling these as Congress making any laws--will improve the quality of life and improve the protections.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect what my friend on the other side of the aisle has to say, but, again, I respectfully disagree.

Once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. That would have but one effect: to preserve the freedom to run riot that Washington bureaucrats have enjoyed for decades

as they have racked up roughly $2 trillion in regulatory burdens on the American people.

The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms workplace safety rules issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health Administration to reduce traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease.

I would urge my colleagues to read the bill and listen more closely. The bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will produce better rules, smarter rules, less costly rules. That will free up resources for desperately needed job creation, meaning more workers will have more safe workplaces in which to earn a living.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, one last time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. One last time, that attempt should be rejected.

We need a strong judiciary, not a supine one, to stand up to agency overreach and abuse and protect the liberty and property of the America from the long hands of Washington's restless bureaucrats.

The amendment also would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms rules issued under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Chemical safety is important to all of us. Congress worked hard on chemical safety legislation. But it is smarter regulations, supported by sounder science, at less cost that will best produce chemical safety under that act. That is precisely the kind of regulation that will happen once the 21st century rulemaking reforms in the Regulatory Accountability Act become law.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill's bold reforms deliver the heart of the regulatory reform this Nation desperately needs; and I cannot overstate how desperately we need it because, after 8 years of the Obama administration's blowout administrative state, what do we have?

We have an economy that for 8 straight years has failed to produce enough good, new, full-time jobs to sustain growth and restore dignity to the unemployed. We have 92 million Americans outside the workforce, a level not seen since the Carter years. We have nearly $2 trillion of American wealth commandeered each year to be spent as Washington bureaucrats demand, through runaway regulation--$2 trillion. This is more money than the GDP of all but eight countries in the world.

We do not need a regulatory state that is that size; we need a regulatory system that is cut down to size. And lest we ever forget, we need a regulatory system that never again allows

a runaway executive branch to do what the Obama administration did: use a pen and a phone to undertake an end run around Congress and force on the American people job-crushing policies that their elected representatives in Congress never supported.

This motion to recommit turns a blind eye to all of that. It says to the runaway administrative state: Keep on running as fast as you can; we don't care. It says to the American people: Sit down and be quiet. Washington bureaucrats are your betters, and you need to just keep doing what they tell you to do.

Well, the hardworking taxpayers have spoken and yanked the boots of unelected bureaucrats off the throats of hardworking Americans. Enough is enough. Support this bill. Reject this motion to recommit. Show the American people that they come first, not bureaucrats in Washington.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the REINS Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for taking charge of this bill in the 115th Congress and Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte for quickly bringing it to the floor.

This week and next, the primary focus of debate here in the House is the stranglehold of regulation on the economy and its intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans. These onerous burdens are well-known to Members of Congress on both sides.

Over the past several years, I have spent countless hours traveling across the nearly 6,600 square miles of my district. I have met with my constituents in their homes, in their workplaces and social halls. They have pleaded with me for release from the regulations that limit their ability to prosper, innovate, and grow.

Unlike the nameless, faceless, ever-growing bureaucracy here in Washington, we have listened to the people's concerns. We have made regulatory reform a priority and the focal point for jump-starting our economy. By placing final approval of major regulations in the hands of Congress, the REINS Act is an important launch point in our efforts to dismantle the administrative state and make government more accountable to the American people.

Our Founders vested in Congress--and Congress alone--the power to write the laws. Unfortunately, over our history, we have delegated much of that power away. The Founders could not have imagined our current scenario where the complaints of many fall on the deaf ears of an unelected few in Washington.

Thinking over the past 8 years, the REINS Act could have prevented numerous regulations that the American people knew were threats to their very way of life. Perhaps a trillion dollars in costs could have been avoided. I cannot even imagine how many jobs might have been saved or created if we avoided the regulatory barrage brought on by the Obama administration.

For example, we could have prevented the waters of the United States regulation that impacts the farmers near my home in rural Pennsylvania. The FCC's net neutrality rule might have been overturned, a classic rulemaking bait and switch where the FCC ignored the mountains of public comment to achieve its own political ends. An unaccountable sum of environmental regulations might have been avoided before destroying large swaths of our industry and imposing huge costs on taxpayers.

Our prime takeaway from these instances and others is that the runaway regulators issued wide-ranging and economy-destroying regulations with complete disregard for the hardworking American citizens whose livelihoods were at stake.

Today we take an important step to reassert the voice of the American people in our government. The REINS Act reestablishes the Congress as the final judge of whether or not any particular regulation actually does what the Congress meant it to do.

Returning this responsibility to the branch of government most attentive and accountable to the people adheres to the principles of our Nation's founding. It is an effort that all elected to Congress should support.

I urge my colleagues to support the REINS Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment renders congressional findings on climate change and requires that agencies report to Congress on greenhouse gas impacts associated with a rule. It also requires agencies to report on a rule's effect on low-income and rural communities.

Further, the amendment expands the definition of major rule to include rules that allow increases of carbon emissions by more than 25,000 metric tons per year or that might increase the risk of certain diseases in rural or low-income communities.

I oppose this amendment.

The REINS Act is not designed to address one or two subjects of regulation with heightened scrutiny but not others. It is to restore accountability to the people's elected representatives in Congress for the largest regulatory decisions, whatever subject is involved.

Further, and consistent with that, the addition of congressional findings in one policy area--climate change--but no other, has no place in the REINS Act.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule reducing the incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory diseases in children. But do not be fooled. This amendment is not about reducing these maladies. It is about transferring the power to decide how best to do so from elected representatives to unaccountable bureaucrats.

For example, government could substantially reduce teenage mortality by barring teenage drivers off the road. Of course, there would be a substantial cost to that policy, and there are surely less burdensome ways to achieve the same reductions in mortality. The right decision requires a delicate balancing of interest. Agencies can provide valuable expertise, but, when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people.

That is the intuition behind the REINS Act and the fundamental point that is lost on those who oppose it.

Reducing the incidence of mortality and serious disease is a goal that all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected representatives decide how best to achieve that policy so that our Republic remains a government by the people as the Constitution designed.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule pertaining to health or public safety.

Health and public safety regulations done properly serve important goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals; but Federal health and public safety regulations constitute an immense part of total Federal regulation and have been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job- and wage-destroying regulations. To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower cumulative regulatory costs and increase the accountability of our regulatory system and the Congress to the people, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reforms regulations that would reduce the amount of lead in public drinking water.

But, like other amendments, this amendment is not so much about achieving a particular health or safety result. It is about taking the decision on how best to do that away from elected Representatives and handing it down to unaccountable bureaucrats. Agencies can provide valuable expertise, but when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected officials who are accountable to the people. This is the intuition behind the REINS Act, and the fundamental point is lost on its opponents.

Preventing dangerous levels of lead in our drinking water is a goal all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected Representatives decide how best to achieve that policy so that our Republic remains a government by the people, as the Constitution designed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate what our position is, it is about time that we in D.C.--in Congress--take our responsibility back from unelected bureaucrats and make these decisions. We have seen, over the past 8 years, what overburdensome regulation has done to this country as far as crushing jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reforms regulations intended to protect young children and infants from harm.

Child safety is a goal all Members share, but to shield bureaucrats who write child safety regulations from accountability to Congress is no way to guarantee a child's safety. The only thing that would guarantee is less careful decisionmaking and more insulation of faceless bureaucrats from the public.

The Constitution entrusts to Congress the authority to protect children--and all citizens--from harmful products flowing in interstate commerce. The public should be able to trust Congress--and we should trust ourselves--to make sure that Washington bureaucrats make the right decisions to protect child safety when we delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the REINS Act doesn't prevent the bureaucracy, the agencies, from making recommendations and suggestions to Congress. It simply says Congress will have the last word and not a handful of bureaucrats, and many of them don't even have experience in these areas.

I urge my colleagues to not support this amendment but to support the REINS Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures regulations that attempt to improve employment, retention, and earnings, particularly for those with significant barriers to employment.

The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives agencies to manipulate their analysis of a major regulation's jobs and wages impacts. Far too often, agencies will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement.

In addition, regulations alleged to create new job prospects often do so by destroying real, existing jobs and creating new, hoped-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act rules have shut down existing power plants all over the country, throwing myriads of workers out of work. EPA and OMB attempt to justify that with claims that more new green jobs have been created as a result.

In the end, this is just another way in which government picks the jobs winners and the jobs losers, and there is no guarantee that all of the new green jobs will ever actually exist.

The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose between new jobs and old jobs.

Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It chooses the way the Framers intended in which accountability for laws with major economic impact rests with Congress. It rejects the way Washington has operated for too long in which there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in nuclear safety. We want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made.

That is precisely why I oppose the amendment. By its terms, the amendment shields from the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them.

All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards, whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS Act. That way agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety would know that Congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect.

That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. It is a solution that everyone should support because it makes Congress more accountable and ensures agencies will write better rules. All Americans will be safer for it.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, this administration has proven how thousands of regulations have crushed jobs for the middle class people in this country. The REINS Act does designate and allows and wants agencies to make decisions as far as what they think the law should be and send it to Congress.

We do have the time. We have the resources and the knowledge. That is why we have full committees. That is why we have subcommittees and we have experts come in and testify. Yet, we still need to get back--that the 535 Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, make the final decision and not a handful of unelected bureaucrats.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reform regulations that concern natural gas or hazardous materials pipeline safety or the prevention of pipeline spills and their adverse impacts.

We all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harm from pipeline spills, but there is no assurance that the amendment would guarantee the achievement of those goals. On the contrary, the amendment would shield from congressional accountability procedures, regulations, that actually threaten to decrease safety. They also would shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new, ideologically driven regulations intended to impede America's access to new sources of cheap, clean, and plentiful natural gas.

The legislative body is the legislative body. We are trying to have oversight over the bureaucracy. The House and the Senate is not a bureaucracy. It is a legislative body, according to the Constitution that represents the people of the United States. Therefore, the House and the Senate and the President should have the last say in whether something becomes law or not.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, what better group, such as the Committee on Energy and Commerce or other committees here, the full committees, the subcommittees, would be looking out and should be looking out for the public safety and the welfare than the 535 Members of Congress?

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures any workplace safety rules issued by OSHA or the Mine Safety and Health Administration to reduce traumatic injury, cancer, or lung disease.

But please do not be fooled. This amendment is not about reducing these maladies. It is about transferring the power to decide how best to do so from elected Representatives, being House Members and Senators, to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Arriving at the right decision requires a delicate balancing of interests. Agencies can provide valuable expertise, but when there is a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people. That is the intuition behind the REINS Act and the fundamental point that is lost on its opponents.

Preventing workplace injury is a goal all Members share. This bill does not frustrate that goal. It merely ensures that elected Representatives make the final call about major decisions so that our Republic remains a government by the people as the Constitution's Framers designed.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I fully support Congressman King's amendment. It improves the viability of the REINS Act and makes sure that the responsibility of legislation is in the hands of we legislators.

Let me just ask this simple question. My good friend on the other side says that we should let the agencies and departments regulate and make rules. Let me ask this: How has it been going in the last 20 years in this country?

We are $20 trillion in debt, and 20 million people are out of work or underemployed.

Are we going to continue to let bureaucrats make these decisions that crush jobs?

No, I don't think so. It is our responsibility in the House and it is our responsibility in the Senate. We can hear from those individuals, as I have repeatedly said here, in those agencies. We need to make the final decision because just look at the track record over the last 20, 30 years of unelected bureaucrats making these rules, laws, and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Midnight Rules Relief Act.

Recently, impossible opportunities exist for this body to reassert its authority and work on behalf of the American people. The Midnight Rules Relief Act would provide Congress with an important tool to begin the process of dismantling the onerous regulatory burdens imposed over the past 8 years.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, I have dedicated considerable time over the past 2 years to closely monitoring the growth of the administrative state. The estimated regulatory costs across all years of the Obama administration are staggering. However, the regulatory onslaught in its final year alone--disastrous--shows the damage already done and the greater impact that will fall on our economy.

In 2016, 401 regulations were finalized. The total compliance cost for this period exceeds $164 billion and amounts to nearly 121 million paperwork hours. That is 401 regulations and $164 billion. This is only during the final year of the Obama administration. It is no wonder that the American people sought a new, more promising direction for our country.

Finally, the Congress has an opportunity to act to protect the American people and repeal many of these crushing regulations. For us in Congress, we cannot forget what these numbers represent. For my constituents and for Americans across the country, the billions in dollars of costs imposed on the economy represent jobs lost, routine bills that cannot be paid, and the American Dream slipping from their grasp.

The true story of this regulatory onslaught is told by workers at shuttered stores, factories, and power plants across the country. Their concerns and fears are ours. As this current administration exits, we must remain vigilant to last-ditch efforts at crippling our economy.

On top of those in recent months, a number of new regulations may still be finalized in a hurried, nontransparent fashion. The American people are concerned that our current regulatory process ignores the balancing of costs and benefits and the regulatory impact on their lives. From what we have seen over the past 8 years, it is clear that they should be.

Starting this week, Congress has an opportunity to reassert its constitutional authority and act for all Americans. The Midnight Rules Relief Act is a well-advised measure that gives Congress the ability to quickly examine and eliminate the mass of regulations promulgated in recent months. This has been done by both Republican and Democrat administrations.

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

Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 50 I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 49 I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 48 I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania.

Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 47, I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania.

Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 46, I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 527.

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

Good morning, Mr. Conyers. It is good to see you.

Six long years into the Obama administration, and notwithstanding some fleeting, recent signs, jobs have yet to recover from the recession. Wages also have not recovered, and the rate of new business startups has not recovered as well.

Instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historical levels. Real wages have fallen. Dependency on government assistance has increased. Our economy is failing to give enough hardworking Americans the confidence they need to start new small businesses and create new jobs.

At the root of our problem are, more than anything else, the endless drain to Washington of hard-earned income that working people and small businesses need to turn things around in their homes and communities and Washington's endless placement of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth.

That regulatory burden hits small businesses especially hard. Small businesses generate 63 percent of net new private sector jobs and employ nearly half of America's private sector workers; yet they have to pay significantly more to comply with Federal regulations than do larger employers.

Poll after poll has demonstrated that the level of Federal regulations coming from Washington is at the top of the list of obstacles faced by America's small businesses, our top job creators.

This is not fair, and it is exactly the wrong burden to place on small businesses as this Nation struggles to produce a true jobs and wages recovery. Congress can and should act to free small businesses of the burdens and waste associated with excessive Federal regulations so that more jobs will be available to Americans trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

That is why prompt passage of the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act is so important. This legislation will, for the first time in nearly 20 years, overhaul the laws that govern how Federal regulators should consider--and minimize--the adverse impacts of new regulations on small businesses.

Primarily, the bill reinforces the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It only requires agencies to do what current law tries to achieve and what common sense dictates should be done.

However, current law is beset by loopholes, and those loopholes must be closed. That is what the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, at long last, does.

For example, the bill mandates that all agencies, not just the current few, work with small business review panels early in the rulemaking process for major rules, before agencies become entrenched in their proposed paths, to help small businesses better and more effectively point out to agencies what is the best path. The bill also requires agencies to assess not just the direct effects of new regulation on small businesses but also indirect effects, which often can be substantial.

The bill also, for the first time, authorizes the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to be the one consistent authority on regulatory flexibility requirements the law imposes on all agencies. This will, at long last, curb the agencies' tendencies to interpret the law to suit their own individual whims and will force agencies to focus on the common needs of small business.

The minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen?

Small businesses will have a real chance to be heard before agencies, effectively, make up their minds. Agencies will have better information upon which to tailor their regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on small businesses. Agencies will have fewer opportunities to escape requirements to hear those businesses and gather that better information, and small businesses will be freer than they have been in decades to devote their resources to what they do best--create the new jobs, products, and services that can drive the economy forward to true and lasting recovery.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act recognizes that economic growth ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators. It represents a critical means to convert the recognition into reality.

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

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2015.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 527, the Small

Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew

Pickford.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf,

Director.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of

2015

Summary: H.R. 527 would amend the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) to expand the number of rules covered by the RFA

and to require agencies to perform additional analysis of

regulations that affect small businesses. The legislation

also would provide new authorities to the Small Business

Administration's (SBA's) Office of Advocacy to intervene and

provide support for agency rulemaking. Finally, H.R. 527

would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to

report on the implementation of the legislation.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 527 would cost $55

million over the 2015-2020 period, assuming appropriation of

the necessary funds. Enacting the bill could affect direct

spending by agencies not funded through annual

appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

CBO estimates, however, that any net increase in spending by

those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 527

would not affect revenues.

H.R. 527 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

If any federal agencies increase their mandatory fees to

offset the costs of implementing the additional analysis

required by the bill, H.R. 527 would increase the cost of an

existing mandate on private entities to pay those fees. CBO

expects that if such mandatory fees are increased as a result

of the bill, the additional cost of the mandate in any one

year would fall well below the annual threshold established

in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2015,

adjusted annually for inflation).

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary effect of H.R. 527 is shown in the following table.

The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions

370 (commerce and housing credit), 800 (general government),

and all budget functions that include funding for agencies

that issue regulations affecting small businesses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

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

I hear constantly when we are on the floor with bills, which sometimes are bipartisan and sometimes are not, that the President says he is going to veto them. I hope that is not the case, because when it comes to saying that the President is going to veto and his actually doing it, they are two different things. I hope the President works with us on this.

Again, we extend our hand across the aisle here and to the other side of the Capitol to simply say to the regulators that this bill does not want to regulate the regulators. It wants the regulators to use common sense and to get input from the American people--the middle class--and from the people who create jobs, the small businesses, to see what they have to say.

I worked in a factory before I went to college and law school, and I worked my way up to mid-level management. When we did things, I brought in everyone--the people who even worked the machinery. We talked about things, and we resolved many, many things, but we got input from everyone.

As far as letters from people who support the bill, I have a list of 159 names and businesses. This is dated February 3, 2015, from A to Z-- from the Adhesive and Sealant Council to woodworking machinery associations. All of these 159 small businesses support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have been doing some research over these couple of days. This administration alone has implemented over 75,000 pages of new regulations. I just read some figures earlier on this morning that, if we get rid of this ridiculous regulation--and I am not saying all regulation; we do need oversight regulation--almost $1 trillion a year will be added to the economy and almost 1 million people will be added to work on a yearly basis. This is just excellent stuff.

I want to give you an example from my district, Pennsylvania's 10th District. I live in a little village called Cogan Station outside of Williamsport, which is the home of Little League World Series Baseball. I live in the middle of five farms, and I have been there for 15 years.

Pursuant to the Navigable Waters Act, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have said that, if it rains and if a puddle forms on the farm-- in an attempt for this administration to get more control over our lives--because of the Navigable Waters Act, the EPA and the Army Corps have control now over that farm and can shut it down.

Now, I have been there for 15 years in the middle of these five farms, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through. So this is just an example of how ridiculous this legislation can get.

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

Mr. Chair, I have the distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend, to speak on behalf of us.

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

I understand the responsibility of having oversight over any business, but let me give you a couple of examples, again, from my district where a small community bank, who is the primary lender of small businesses, instead of hiring more tellers to expand the business and provide better service for their small business clients, had to hire three people just to review and keep up with regulatory reform that applies to large national and international banks who are lending hundreds of millions of dollars.

That is not the case with smalltown banks. They are lending money to the young man and woman who got a job, saved some money, want to buy a car, and have to go to the bank and say: Can you lend me $10,000? The paperwork that the bank has to go through to do that is costing jobs and costing our economy.

I just got a call yesterday from one of my constituents. The Amish in my district were putting a roof on a small barn they had. OSHA stopped by and

shut it down and fined the Amish because they didn't have helmets on. They only had their straw hats. So he put them out of work for a couple of weeks. They had to pay a fine, and then they have to go buy helmets to put a small roof on a small barn.

I have a constituent from my district who has a little grocery store, and he just had a shipment of bread delivered. It just so happened that an inspector was there, and the bread was brought in through the dock door and set next to, inside the dock door. He was fined because the bread, which is wrapped and on racks, was sitting too close to the dock door.

These are the types of regulation to which we are referring that crush jobs and are killing this economy. One of the inspectors was asked: Why are you doing this?

The inspector simply said, and according to my constituent, arrogantly said: Because I can.

That is no way for an employee of the United States Government to be talking to someone who helps pay his wages.

So with that, Mr. Chair, this is a good piece of legislation. This is common sense, and this is very simple. Let's make the regulators do more with less. There are no agencies or departments in the Federal Government that can tell me that they are running as efficiently as they possibly can.

My good friend, the ranking member, said it is going to cost a great deal to have this rule, this legislation, implemented and the departments and agencies follow the rule. No. You know what the departments and agencies have to do? They have to do just exactly what small business operators throughout this country do: do more with less, and put in a good, hard day's work.

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

Madam Chair, I just simply want to say that I support this legislation. I tell my children on a weekly basis--they can recite it verbatim--that if it were not for our veterans, if it were not for our military personnel and our servicemembers that are working now, my children wouldn't have what they have today. So I want to reinforce that.

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the key failings of existing law is that it allows different agencies to interpret differently the terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This allows agencies to find loopholes at their pleasure and evade the requirements of the law.

The bill remedies this defect by granting the Small Business Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to write regulations to govern all agencies' compliance with the RFA and

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

Mr. Chair, I share and welcome the gentleman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill.

At the heart of the bill are reforms to make sure agencies better identify the potential jobs impact of new rules; that includes not only identifying and minimizing the adverse jobs impact, but maximizing positive job benefits. It is right there in subsection 2(c) on page 3 of the bill.

If the gentleman wants to maximize job creation, the way to do it is to make sure the provisions designed to maximize job benefits apply to all rules, including those that OMB believes will result in net job creation.

Why stop at just helping to create a net increase in jobs, which could mean as little as just one net job? Why not make sure agencies always work with small businesses under the bill's provisions to help create the most new jobs possible and prevent the destruction of the most jobs possible? Isn't that what makes sense as the Nation tries to recover from the jobs depression?

Further, why create a carve-out from the bill that gives the executive branch an incentive to manipulate its jobs impact analyses to avoid the requirements of the bill rather than comply with them?

I would also like to bring to the Chair's attention, this administration highly overinflates--or underinflates, whatever side you are looking at--the unemployment rate.

In the unemployment rate, they are not taking into account the almost 1 million people that are not looking for work, and that is normally taken into consideration. They are also taking into account as a person being employed as this example: a person who mows his neighbor's lawn for 20 bucks because he doesn't have a job. That is considered, according to this administration, a job.

Multiple reports clearly prove that the cost of Federal regulation to the U.S. economy, manufacturing, and small business, and Ten Thousand Commandments, these are reports from just last year, and they give the accurate account of the unemployment rate.

My good colleague on the other side of the aisle refers to a report from 2010. We should be referring to the latest reports as I hold them in my hand.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to carve out an exception to the bill for Food and Drug Administration rules related to consumer safety. I am all for consumer safety. All of us support the protection of consumer safety, but it is my fervent hope that all of us also support small business jobs and want to protect them.

That, of course, was the point of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the first place, to continue to allow agencies like the FDA to protect consumers but, at the same time, to start accounting for and avoiding-- where possible--adverse impacts on small businesses.

If agencies had faithfully done what they were supposed to do under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, then we wouldn't be here today, but they haven't; instead, they have routinely tried to evade that law. That has to stop.

Small businesses create jobs, and jobs are the key to economic recovery. To help small businesses to create jobs, we need to reduce-- not increase--the regulatory burden on small businesses.

The FDA is a major regulatory agency, and it is not exempt from the RFA as it currently stands. Now is not the time to start walking back the RFA's requirements. This amendment simply is not consistent with the spirit of small business--the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act--or the needs of today's small business job creators.

If the gentlelady's concern is to make sure that the law allows the FDA to issue new emergency rules to protect consumer safety, then let me assure her, there is no need to worry. Subsection 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA already allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment for good cause.

Since the RFA only applies in notice and comment rulemakings, a fact the bill does not change, nothing will hinder the FDA from issuing emergency rules if the bill is enacted.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our leader.

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

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

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

This motion to recommit presents the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to turn the page. Six long years into the Obama administration, our constituents feel trapped in a job depression. This bill offers one of the best chances we have to really start to turn things around for our constituents.

The bill contains clear, commonsense reforms that will take Washington's regulatory boot off the neck of small businesses in all of our districts so they can create the new jobs our constituents need. The bill contains numerous Democrat-sponsored amendments, making it a truly bipartisan product.

The bill, with bipartisan support, has already passed the House three times in the past two Congresses only to die an obstructionist death at the hands of the former Senate majority leader, who, by the way, the voters threw out of the majority last November. We now have a chance to pass the bill again at the very start of this Congress and to send it over to a Senate that will actually consider it. We should all seize this opportunity.

But what would this motion to recommit do?

It would, once again, inflict on the American people the ways of obstruction. It would block the bill from passage. It would prevent the bill from promptly reaching the Senate and helping to create new jobs for our constituents.

Let's all make this a vote to end the obstruction. With this vote, help this Congress turn the page the voters sent us here to turn. Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blackburn amendment today.

The amendment prevents funding from going towards the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. Make no mistake about it, this program has become a magnet for drawing children from Central America, further putting thousands of children's lives at risk as they embark on a very dangerous journey, which does not only include unsafe conditions, but they are also vulnerable to abuse along the way. This program must be shut down.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not telling the American people that Homeland Security is fully funded. As a matter of fact, it has funded more than $1 billion than the President asked for and more than $400 million from last year.

If Homeland Security gets shut down, it is because the President vetoes the budget because he cannot get his way on amnesty for illegal aliens.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 185, the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act. Simply put, this legislation requires Federal regulatory agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative that meets the statutory objectives.

In the 113th Congress, members of the Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law heard over and over again how these regulatory costs have been key factors that hold back our economic recovery and stand in the way of job creation. Our regulatory reform agenda for the 114th Congress begins today with the passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It is a good place to start. After all, it has been almost 70 years since enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act. Unfortunately, the act has never been modernized nor even amended in any material way.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, it is my honor to support Chairman Goodlatte, and I urge Members to support H.R. 185, a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support in both the 112th and 113th Congress, so the bill can finally be given serious consideration in the new House, the U.S. Senate, and reach the President's desk.

If the President is serious about job creating, helping small businesses, and growing our economy, he will work with us and sign the Regulatory Accountability Act and other important regulatory reform measures into law.

Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we deliver real and permanent regulatory solutions to create jobs. Doing that starts with passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act.

I want to leave the American people with one thought. It is an example how the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is doing what this bill tries to prevent.

I live in the middle of five farms. I have been there for almost two decades. Just recently, the EPA has attempted to get more control over farmland by saying that if there is a rainstorm and there is a puddle, or a farmer even spills milk, through the Navigable Waters Act, EPA has control over that land. As I said, I have been living in the middle of five farms for a couple of decades, and I have yet to see as much as a rowboat go through those farmlands.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, right now, we have the worst of both worlds: more regulation and less scrutiny.

In looking at a recent 7-year period, the Government Accountability Office found that 35 percent of major rules were issued without the opportunity for public comment. The GAO also found a lack of responsiveness. In the case of one ObamaCare regulation--one--4,627 comments were received, but no responses were issued.

Regulatory costs disproportionately hit small manufacturers, which incur regulatory costs of $34,671 per year, per employee--more than three times that of the average American economy. Our energy boom is a perfect example of failed regulatory policy.

Oil and natural gas resources do not know Federal versus State boundaries, but it takes 10 times as long for the Federal Government to issue a permit as it does the States. As a result, oil and gas production is going up sharply on State lands and down on Federal lands.

Finally, ObamaCare is an epicenter of red tape. In its first 4 years, ObamaCare's effects on small business amounted to $1.9 billion in regulatory costs and in 11.3 million hours of compliance. This amounts to a regulatory tax of 3 to 5 percent. Again, this is the cost of just one law's regulations.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, every member of this body and our constituents know that, as we speak, the Department of Homeland Security is in the midst of an unprecedented overreach to change this Nation's immigration laws through regulation and guidance, bypassing Congress and the will of the American people.

How can we support excluding that very effort from the requirements of this good bill? What is more, the amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security--a Department in need of good government reform--from all of the good government rulemaking and guidance reforms in the bill. We should not do that.

The bill does not threaten needed regulation in DHS' jurisdiction, but simply assures that DHS will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less-costly regulation and guidance when necessary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the amendments that go with it.

Now let's get to the facts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle conveniently leave these facts out.

First of all, this has nothing to do with shutting down Homeland Security. Second of all, the total budget for Homeland Security is $39.7 billion. That is $1.3 billion over the President's request. That is $400 million over last year.

Our amendments prevent the President from using any moneys--no matter from where--on amnesty.

There is no reason to shut down Homeland Security. If Homeland Security is shut down, it is due to the Democrats and President Barack Obama because he has more money for Homeland Security than he asked for.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 240 and the amendments.

President Obama released amnesty plans in November that include changes to border security, status of persons currently living in the United States unlawfully, and future legal immigration policy changes-- all of which are directly under the purview of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

In addition this President's executive order included several other changes that directly result in amnesty.

To be clear, democracy in this country was built on the foundation of a three branch federal government.

Our founding fathers saw the importance of checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming all-powerful and exceeding its constitutional authority.

Furthermore, our Constitution specifically grants all lawmaking authority to Congress, and instead gives the executive branch the role of executing the laws passed.

The President's overreach in granting amnesty has left Congress with no choice but to exercise the power of the purse today to restore the Federal Government to one of balance, within the confines of the Constitution.

Last week I introduced the Defund Amnesty Act to ensure this type of change, and I applaud the leadership for bringing legislation to the floor to boldly put an end to the President's executive order on amnesty.

Section 4:

``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.''