tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN January 5, 2017 1:59pm-4:00pm EST
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 188. the previous question is ordered. the house will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will clear the well. members, please take your seats. members, please remove frur conversation from the house floor.
he house will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, the majority leader, seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will please remove your conversation from the house floor. he house will be in order. the gentleman from california, the majority leader, is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, when we as members of congress were first elected, before we're sworn in, before we introduce
our first bit of legislation, the first thing we do is begin to hire to form a team. much of the success that happens on this floor is a loft work that's done behind the scenes by our staffs. they do a tremendous job for this country and the public service they provide. i personally i personally count myself blessed to have my chief of staff since i have been in leadership with timbery. today is his last day on our floor. tim, for his years of service, has been 18 years to this institution. he's been in other leadership offices. he went into the private sector. when i got elected majority whip i asked him if he was willing to come back. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members, please remove your conversations from the house
floor. he house will be in order. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. tim has always provided great wisdom, his personal resolve. he has dedication, but most importantly his moral clarity that he provides. he has been here in some of the most difficult times in this institution. he's been in when people was actually shot, he was in the office whenhat intruder came and took lives from this institution. he has worked on legislation. he's worked on friendships. he's worked across the aisle. but if there was one thing i would define this man is a family man. and today we're lucky to have
his wife, lisa, and daughter, n the gallery with us. and to his other children, ella and chris, i want to thank you for your sacrifice on loaning your father. to every dinner he's missed or every phone call he had to take or maybe that one or two lacrosse games he couldn't coach, i want to thank you. but to tim, i want to thank you for your dedication. i want to thank you for your friendship, and i want to wish you the very best, and on behalf of a very grateful nation and institution, thank you.
i would like to yield to my colleague, the minority whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i want to thank my friend from california, mr. mccarthy, for yielding. rise to thank and to pay tribute to tim berry. mr. speaker, the american so often when we're disagreeing with one another, disagreeing sometimes isagreeably. what they don't see is the staff working with staffs across the aisle and a constructive effort to reach
consensus and to move democracy forward. i would ask my colleagues to come to order, please. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: what they don't see is the collegiality that is engendered through the years between staff who have the responsibility of ensuring not only that their members have full knowledge of what is being considered and their advice and counsel but also of assuring there is positive communication across the aisle even when we disagree. tim berry has been one of the st adapt, most cordial, most positive and most effective
end. rs in affecting that they lament that from time to time. im berry, i want you to ow, i'm very proud is from silver spring, maryland. grew up in silver spring and grew up in our state. tim berry is a proud son of our state. yes, he's a republican. yes, he's been on staff on the other side of the aisle, but he's an american first. who has cared about his country , who has cared about this institution and has cared about showing respect and concern for staffs on both sides of the aisle. i have had a number of chiefs of staff, one of whom is cory alexander, now the vice president of united health. cory alexander and tim are
friends and they worked together very constructively when tim was with tom delay, who was in the office, mr. mccarthy is in that office, and i had the privilege of using that office for four years and there was never a time when we walked down that hallway that we didn't think of detective gibson losing his life and officer chestnut losing his life outside that door. tim berry was there to serve. tim berry served, notwithstanding the dangers that were self-evident. lisa is in the gallery and his children that have been mentioned by leader mccarthy. young people. you can be extraordinarily proud of your dad. i know, lisa, you are as well. he's made this institution a better institution.
he's made the relationship between the parties more positive in times when it was greatly strained. tim, thank you. thank you for your service to the congress. thank you for your service to the country, and thanks for your service to each and every one of us. god bless you and god speed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields ack. mr. mccarthy: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.
a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
pursuant to house resolution 22 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 26. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 26, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill neend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, each
will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. members will please remove your conversation from the house floor. he committee will be in order. he committee will be in order. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, regulatory reform plays a critical role in ensuring that our nation finally achieves a full economic recovery and
retains its competitive edge in the global marketplace. congress must advance pro-growth policies that create jobs and restore economic prosperity for families and businesses across the nation and makes sure that any administration and it's regulatory apparatus is held accountable to the american people. america's small business owners are suffocating under mountains of endlessly growing bureaucratic red tape. the uncertainty about the cost of upcoming regulations discourages employers from hiring new employees and expanding their businesses. excessive regulation means higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less economic growth, and a less competitive america. today americans face a burden of over $3 trillion per year from federal taxation and regulation. in fact, our federal regulatory burden is larger than the 2014 domestic gross product of all but the top eight countries in
the world. that burden adds up to about $15,000 per american household. nearly 30% of average household income in 2015. everyone knows it has been this way for far too long. but the obama administration instead of fixing the problem has known only one response -- increase taxes, increase spending, and increase regulation. the results have been painfully demonstrated, a simple -- they have painfully demonstrated a simple truth, america cannot tax, spend, and regulate its way to economic recovery, economic growth, and durable prosperity for the american people. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. members, please remove our conversation from the house floor. he committee will be in order.
the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: the results have been painfully demonstrated, a simple truth, america cannot tax, spend, and regulate its way to economic recovery, economic growth, and durable prosperity for the american people. consider just a few facts that reveal the economic weakness the obama administration has produced. in the december, 2016 jobs report, the number of unemployed workers, workers who can only find part-time jobs, and workers who are now only marginally attached to the labor force, stood at 9.3%. they number 15 million americans. america's labor force participation rate remains at lows not seen since the carter administration. and median household income still is below the level achieved before the financial crisis, after the entirety of
the obama administration. the contrast between america's current condition and the recovery ronald reagan achieved as president is particularly stark. 4 1/2 years after recession began in 1981, the reagan administration through policies opposite to the obama administration had achieved a recovery that created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession began. real per capita gross domestic product rose by $3,091. real median household income rose by 7.7%. to truly fix america's problems, the reins act is one of the simplest, clear yerks and most powerful measures we can adopt. the level of new major regulation from the obama administration is without modern precedent. testimony before the judiciary committee during recent congresses has plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation and declining levels of jobs and
growth. the reins act responds by requiring an up or down vote by the people's representatives in congress before any new major regulation defined in the bill generally as a rule that has an effect on the economy of at least $100 million, can be imposed on our economy. it does not prohibit major -- new major regulation. it simply establishes the principle no major regulation without representation. the reins act provides congress and ultimately the people with a much needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet that washington's regulatory bureaucrats too often turn. during the 114th, 113th, and 112th congresses the reins act was passed by the full house of representatives multiple times, each time with bipartisan support. i thank mr. collins of georgia for reintroducing this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to vote for the reins act. i reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i thank the speaker. i listened intently to the opening remarks of my colleague. seems to try to justify the passage of the reins act, which i rise in opposition to, by the way, seems to justify that by saying that it has been the job killing regulations of the obama administration that has our economy in its position which is ne that is not good. and despite trying to convince the american people of that fact -- that allegation, the american people are aware of the facts. they are aware of the facts of the -- of the fact that eight years ago when president obama
came into office this economy under republican stewardship, using trickle-down economics as its model, our economy eight years ago as president obama ok office neared the great depression, in fact we call it the period of the great recession, this country almost went into depression and it went into a great recession because of the policies of george bush and the republicans. trickle-down economics, which daddy bush, george herbert walker bush, once referred to as voodoo economics, he was right about that. let's look at where we were then and look at where we're now and ask ourselves are we not better off now than we were then? there's not many voice that is could say, no, we're not better
off than we were then, because they know that since then there have been 81 straight months of positive private sector job growth. millionw that over 15.6 new jobs have been added to our economy. president obama. they also know that 30 million more people have health insurance and access to the health care system now than they did back then. ey know that regulations had to ensue from passage of the affordable care act to enable those 30 million people to have coverage now. and that's why they want to introduce this regulation to -- this legislation to cut regulation.
they want to try to hurt the affordable care act. they also know that regulations d to spring forth from the dodd-frank wall street regulation legislation that was passed in this body. they know that those regulations have protected the finances and the financial security of americans who are doing far better now than they were eight years ago as president obama took office. american people know that. that they are much better off now. they know that bankruptcies have gone down. they know that foreclosures have gone down. they know that they have a better job. they know that things are better now than they were back then. but the republicans, you remember, and the american people remember, the very day of
president obama's first inauguration when mitch mcconnell and a cabal of republicans both house and senate met, crying in their beers at a capitol hill bar, on the night of the inauguration, and they imparted on a strategic -- strategy to do what? to make sure that president obama would be a first term president. so they resolved to oppose everything that he proposed. and they certainly did. but despite unprecedented opposition from the republicans, just saying no to everything, the american people know that they are in a better position today thn they -- than they were comingme eight years ago
into the obama administration. they want to do legislation to do away with the rules and the regulations concerning the affordable care act and the dodd-frank legislation which has protected the financial security of americans over the last eight years. that's why they come forward with this so-called jobs bill, this regulatory reform bill called the reins act, is not going to produce or create one single job. but what it will do is cut the health, safety, and well-being measures -- it will cut measures to protect the health, safety, and well-being of americans. this would require that both houses of congress pass and the president sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take effect.
in other words, this bill would subject new major rules to nullification by congress through an unconstitutional legislative veto by one chamber of commerce. following republican attempts earlier this week to gut ethics and oversight rules that are necessary to police corruption, it is telling that the reins act is the next bill that the house would consider in the 115th congress. americans should understand what the game plan is of the republicans. they want the fox to guard the hen house. that's why they, the very first act they tried to get passed s reform of the house ethics regime. they wanted to neuter it, place it under the control of the republican-controlled house ethics committee where it would
then lange wish and -- langwish on a e on -- like a prune vine that is unwatered. that's the first thing they came up with. and the american people called them on it and wouldn't let them get past it, wouldn't let them pass it so they have postponed it. america, you need to keep your eyes on this congress to make sure that they don't follow through with that measure that would install the foxes over the hen house. and what they want to do is install the corporate foxes over america's hen house with this reins act. the reins act is essential to the speaker's so-called better way agenda which is better for rich corporate elites to further insulate themselves from public accountability and is emblematic of the same tired , capitalistic proposals that has been kicked around since
the 1980's. in fact, in 1983, chief justice john roberts, who was then a counsel to president reagan, criticized a similar proposal as unwise because it would hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional ascent to all major rules and would seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory -- on the regulatory agencies. in addition to being an unmitigated disaster for public health and safety, proposals like the reins act will actually do major harm to regulatory reform attempts as the late justice antonin scalia wrote in 1981. then a professor at the university of chicago law school, justice scalia cautioned, quote, those in the congress seemed perversely unaware that acursed, unelected officials downtown are now
their unelected officials presumeable, seeking to move things in their desired direction and that every curtailment of desirable agency discretion obstructs principally departure from democrat-produced pro-regulatory status quo. it's not often i quote justice scalia, but ironically i do so today. the reins act also imposes deadlines for the enactment of a joint resolution approving a major rule that could be but red to as bisentine, not to use too lofty a language, i will say this is like throwing a monkey wrench in a well-oiled machine. under new section 802, the house may consider a major rule on the second or fourth thursday of each month.
in 2014, for example, there were only 13 such days on the legislative calendar. i think on the legislative calendar for 2017, there are only about 13, maybe 14 or 15 of such days where we could consider these major rules under -- on this legislative alendar. and i will point out there are 80 such rules of importance that come through in a typical year. furthermore, under new section 801, congress may consider such resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. this creates a lot of red tape that threatens to end rulemaking as we know it, and that's the exact precise intent of this congress. even if agencies reduce the number of major rules in contemplation of a bill's onerous requirements, congress
would still lack the expertise and policy justifications for refusing to adopt a major rule. ver 80 of the nation's leading professors in administrative law noted in a letter, without this expertise, any disapproval is therefore more likely to reflect the political power of special interests, a potential that would be magnified in light of the fast track process. lastly, by flipping the process of agency rulemaking so that congress can simply implementation by not acting on a major rule, the reins act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of article 1 of the constitution. and so it is my pleasure to oppose this bill and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same and with that i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. -- virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. mr. marino: thank you, 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 his bill in the 115th congress and judiciary committee chairman goodlatte for quickly bringing to to the floor. this week and next the primary focus of debate here in the house is the strangle hold 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 eight years, the reins act could have prevented numerous regulations that the american people knew were threats to their very way of life. perhaps $1 trillion 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 s.e.c.'s net neutrality rule might have been overturned, a classic rulemaking bait and switch
where the s.e.c. ignored the mountains of public comment to achieve its own political end. an unconscionable 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 and our government. the reins act re-establishes 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, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to yield to the eloquence of my friend, congressman steve cohen out of the great city of memphis, the great state of tennessee. the chair: for how long? mr. johnson: five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you. i don't know if i can live up to those words but i appreciate them. i was the ranking member on this committee, and i was chair at one point, and we had this bill over the years. it is indeed a monkey wrench or a monkey in the wrench, as john
mcclain, might have said. it will mess up the entire system that we have of congress passing laws, delegating, giving the executive the ability to enact them in ways that make them functional and appropriate and come up with the details that the congress is not expertise enough to do. the other side refers constantly to people that prepare these rules, which take many, many years, and have as much input as broughts, which are per jor tiff. they have expertise in certain areas and who study an area and become so much more expert than we are on the subject that they can come up with fine tuned laws that are checked and balanced to make sure the laws are implemented in the way that congress intends. if congress doesn't like it congress can pass a bill by both house and senate to repeal it. we've already got that
possibility. under in unique approach, either one of the houses of congress can stop regulation, a rule from going into effect because both houses would have to approve a rule and the president would have to sign it before it could go into effect. that gives one house the ability to veto, basically, an executive action. it's the executive that has the power to veto acts of the legislature and not vice versa. we can pass laws which is in a bicameral spirit which is what our constitution has when the house and the senate agree, but neither house independently is given any power to veto laws or legislation. this would break that, and i believe, would be unconstitutional. that's why i oppose h.r. 26, the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act 2017. indeed, the executive in need
of scrutiny act is most appropriate this year as we start because in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, we are indeed going to have an executive in need of scrutiny. so i thank the republicans for naming this bill appropriately, because we are indeed in the times of an executive in need of scrutiny. we need scrutiny over income tax returns that have been hidden from the public, that might disclose conflicts of interest or loans from characters that might be and have oligarches influence over our policy. we need an executive in need of scrutiny act that deals with these conflicts, that income taxes that have not been released, people could go to hotels and be in favor with the executive. indeed, we need an executive in need of scrutiny act, so i appreciate the well-named bill that the republicans have
brought us and the awareness through this bill they've seen we need some concern about the executive coming because he certainly needs scrutiny. this bill, though, is the worst of corporate special interests because it will give corporate special interests the opportunity to override rules that take effect unless both houses pass it. . it's difficult for the house to get legislation passed in the tos we have legislation, but have both houses to have a pocket veto, the house would have to positively pass and the senate positively pass. if the speaker doesn't want to do it, the speaker can pocket veto the legislation, it doesn't even have to be scheduled. this is not draining the swamp. it'll heighten the influence of
corporate lobbyists on congress where they can come to the speaker and ask that agency rules they don't like that might protect the lives of children because they are regulations dealing with toys that are seen to be defective or automobiles where they need safety devices or other consumer protections, that interfere with business interests. business is good and important but sometimes business does things that is injurious to the public. to give this opportunity to stop rules and regulations from going into effect to protect the public is wrong and as was suggested, maybe it'll help the economy but at what cost? what is one life worth? or several lives? lives are lost because safety regulations are not approved by this house and the senate or one or the other and then don't go into effect. this is as i mentioned seriously constitutionally defective.
and the -- can i have 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. cohen: the ranking member mentioned justice scalia, i'll mention chief justice roberts who opposed a similar rule that would -- because it would hobble rule making such that it would, quote, seem to impose excessive burdens on regulatory agencies. john roberts. some of the underlying facts given were about the economy. no matter what you say, president obama has been effective on the economy. we saved the housing mark, saved the country from the great recession, we brought about ke re-covery, not something that we should disparage but we should praise. the stock market has gone up to record highs, unemployment is down, jobs are up, the automobile industry has been saved. i ask you to reject this bill
because it's unconstitutional. it'll cost lives of american citizens because safety regulations won't be passed and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman is recognized. >> at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: our founding fathers intended us to have a limited government. if they saw what we have today they'd be appalled. our government has gotten huge, it's out of control, an alphabet soup of unelected agencies and bureaucrats are writing the laws. they call them regulations but they're laws. any power these agencies have to write regulations was delegated to congress. we're pulling some of that power back. back to congress. back to people elected by pe the people and back to where the founding fathers put it in article 1 of the constitution.
that's why i'm here today to support the reins act. it says if an agency enacts a regulationlation that has an economic impact of more than $100 million that has to come back before congress for a pstive vote before it takes effect. frankly, because the constitution puts all the legislative power in congress, i think every single one of these regulations should come back to congress but the reins act is a great start. throughout president obama's administration, a flood of regulations has put extreme pressure and burdens on american job creators and american families. take, for example, the e.p.a.'s watts of the u.s. rule. it's a power grab by the e.p.a., attempting to regulate any body of water on a private land basically that's any bigger than a bathtub. this goes way beyond what the clean water act says they can do. using this new interpretation, the e.p.a. has full authority to bully land owning american
citizens like wyoming rancher andy johnson who got a permit from the state and local governments to build a stock pond so his cattle could have something to drink. guess what? the e.p.a. said no, they came in after the fact and said if you don't take that out, we're going a day inu with $37,500 fines. finally after drawn out litigation, the e.p.a. was slapped back and johnson's $16 million in fines was erased. this is just one of but many examples of the huge power grab these federal agencies are doing. you need people who are elected and answerable to the american people writing the laws. not unelected bureaucrats. that's why we need the reins act. that's why we need to restore the constitutional power granted to this body in article 1. the reins act is a great start and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves.
the gentleman from georgia is ecognized. mr. johnson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: my the gentleman cites article 1 giving the executive branch authority to make the law, and no one could argue with that. i will oint out that article 2, section 2, subsection 2-3 imposes on the president the executive, the obligation to make sure that the laws, or to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and so rule making comes up under that authority. that constitutional authority. and so what we have is a move by branch to tive intrude upon and to indeed
regulate, certainly we have that power to do so. but is it wise? is it prudent? or does it simply positively impact our campaign contributors, the people who put money into our campaigns? is that the sole reason why we're doing this. you know. we need to give care and thought nto what we're doing here in congress, in this house of representatives. even though one party has all of the power now, they have the majority in the house, they have the majority in the senate, and they have an incoming president, it doesn't mean that they should a off the rails with philosophy that is not in keeping with where the american people are.
i would point out to them that there is no mandate that they have. even though they do have control of the legislative branch and the executive branch of government and they have held up, what some say actually stolen an appointment from the u.s. supreme court that president obama was placed in a position to make last february, upon the demise, the untimely emise of justice scalia. so since july, since february, the court, the u.s. supreme court, has had to suffer through politics being played by the legislative branch and not confirming a presidential appointee and now they have the opportunity to make that ppointment under these
conditions. and even though they have played loose and fancy with the protections of the constitution and with the well being of the american people and indeed our republic by playing these political games, i would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop and think about what they're doing and the ramifications of it, even though you want to get at the e.p.a. to try to make it better for oil companies to be able to pollute ur environment without regulations to prevent it from happening. is that good for our nation? is it good for our children? is it good for our elderly? what does it -- where does it leave us as far as asthma rates which continue to skyrocket in this country?
do you want to gut the dodd-frank wall street reform, to put us back in a situation where people are losing their homes and banks are being bailed out because they've become too fat to fail? do we want to put ourselves back in that position again? well if we do, then we will pass regulations like this one. so-called reins act. and with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from virginia is ecognized. >> at this time, it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you to chairman goodlatte for his leadership in this matter. i rise in strong support of h.r.
26, the reins act, which will restore the constitutional authority of congress and rein in runaway government. as we have seen over the last eight years, our economy has been strangled by federal regulations which are burying small businesses and families. federal regulations imposed on america's job creators and households created a staggering economic burden of almost $2 trillion in 2014. that's almost $15,000 per u.s. household and 11.5% of america's real g.d.p. but today the house has an opportunity to cut through the red tape and restore the balance of powers. economic growth cannot happen through washington, d.c. it can obviously come from main street. that's why i adamantly oppose unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats issuing their own closed door regulations in place of congressional regulations. the reins act will restore
congress' article 1 powers and give a voice back to the american people. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for h.r. 26 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. troth , currently a member of the judiciary committee but soon to move to another committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. troth : i want to share an experience i had a few months ago that will explain why, aside from the constitution, i think it's important that we rein in unelected bureaucrats. when you talk about regulatory reform, it is sometimes hard to understand the impact the regulations have on our economy. and that's for the simple reason
that someone who gos in for a job interview never sitz there and is told by the employer, i would love to offer you this job but i can't because of the crushing regulatory burden coming out of washington. and that's because the crushing burden of regulations causes the job not to be created in the first place, so hence there's no interview for the job. the experience i had a couple of months ago, i was back home, met with the michigan restaurant association. about eight or 10 folks sitting around, telling me about the issues that were important to them. they said, we are dying because of the e.p.a. because of the f.d.a. because of the eeoc. because of the a.c.a. because of the overtime rule from d.o.l. because of the cfpb. and i quickly surmise that the restaurant industry is dying and it's death by acronyms. that's what's happening in this country. that's why we're not creating jobs. if you come in from the airport and come across the 14th street
bridge and you enter the city, all you see is cranes. there was never a recession in washington. today, there are 277,000 people who write and enforce rules in this country in washington, d.c. and around the country. that's more than the entire employee base of the v.a. a few minutes ago, my friend from tennessee said, all these great regulations have saved our country. well, if that had happened, i would have expected a different result on november 8. a few minutes ago, my friend from georgia that i was proud to serve on judiciary with talked about all the problems with our plan. well i say to you, sir, the next time you pull up in front of your favorite outback restaurant and it's closed, it's not because the cook quit. it's not because the cost of beef. it's not because the restaurant was poorly managed. it's because of death by acronyms. i ask everyone to support h.r. 26. it's time we rein in unelected bureaucrats, follow the
constitutions, and create some jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to submit the statement of ranking member john conyers in opposition to this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the request will be covered by general leave. mr. johnson: thank you. to my friend, i'm sorry to see you leaving judiciary, i think -- mr. trott,u've you've -- we appreciate you being there. you're going on to bigger and better things. i would say to you it's surprisg to me that the bloomberg government report show s that of all of the job cut announcements made by industry
during the year 2016, and that was a year, by the way, unlike -- which was not unlike previous years, basically, obama administration has been creating about 1.9 million new private sector jobs per year. and i'm just startled by this statistic here for the year 2016. . as far as the number of job cut announcements by reason. and the reason given for government regulation being sponsible for the job cut is 1,580. that's out of 1.9 million new bs created during the entire 2016 year. due to s lost
government regulation. that's almost as many as were lost due to the less tearia outbreak -- lysteria outbreak or legal trouble. grain downturn. government regulation, 1,580 jobs lost out of 1.9 million created. so, this argument that we keep hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle, that ere's a strangulation or a stranglehold on job creation by obama's regulations, nothing could be more false than that. with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. charlie: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the chair: the gentleman from
virginia has 15 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has ive minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ennsylvania. mr. rothfus: i rise in strong support of h.r. 26, the reins act. this bill is the beginning of making america great again. that's because it puts americans back in charge of the laws being imposed upon them. how does the the legislation do that? under our constitution, we have three branches. the executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, the judicial branch is supposed to resolving disputes arising under the law, and the legislature, this house and the senate, the branch directly elected by the people, is supposed to make the law. but over the last decade, we've seen more and more of the law making in this country migrate to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. those bureaucrats turn out regulation after regulation that have the full force and effect of law.
the problem with this setup is that the people of this country are supposed to consent to laws being imposed upon them. they do that through their elected representatives in congress. in short, this legislation goes to the heart of what elf rule is all about -- of what self-rule is all about. this regulation does not end regulation. it's the beginning of accountability for regulation. if there's a good regulation that a member believes makes sense and does not unduly burden jobs and wages, that member may vote to approve the regulation. if the people that member represents disagree, they get to hold him or her accountable at the ballot box. my colleagues across the aisle should not fear taking responsibility for the laws and regulations coming out of washington, d.c. over the last seven years, washington regulations have hurt many working families. we've seen coal miners and power plant workers lose good jobs, we've seen small, main street community banks and credit unions forced into mergers, we've seen farmers worried about puddles on their farms. we've seen people lose their health insurance, their doctors,
and we've seen the little sisters of the poor have their religious freedom threatened. all without the consent of the people. it's time, mr. speaker, mr. chairman, to put the american people back in charge, not the unelected bureaucrats. let's take the power away from washington, let's restore self-rule. let's pass this bill. i thank the chairman and i yield back. charlie: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. mr. johnson: i just tallied up the number of jobs that would be created by passage of this legislation and i did that by multiplying by eight, the figure of 1,580, which is the number of jobs lost due to government regulation over -- in 2016, and i multiplied that eight times, i come up with 12,640 jobs. that's how many jobs would be created by this legislation.
with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time the my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the reins act, legislation that i, many of my colleagues are proud to co-sponsor, to help bring expensive and expansive regulations under control. over the past several years, major regulations have cost small businesses, states, local governments, individuals, billions of dollars. and has cost them jobs. so this is a commonsense bill to enhance transparency and to give americans greater say in their government and i thank representative collins and chairman goodlatte for their leadership on this issue. by requiring congress to approve any major regulation with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more on the economy, the bill opens the process so our constituents, the people,
can have their voice heard in the process. i'm also pleased an amendment i offered last year, which was accepted by this body, is included in the bill's base text, section 801. that provision requires more transparency by forcing agencies to publish the data and justification they are using to issue the rule. it's important the american people have access to the information in which these conclusions are made. section 801 directs the regulatory bodies to post publicly the data, study, analyses that they use to come up with their rules and conclusions so that we can all be on the same page. transparency. too often i hear concerns from iowans about how overreaching regulations are hurting their farms, businesses and impacting their daily lives. from how our kids are taught, how we manage our personal finances or even drain the water in our communities, we've seen how regulations and those who craft them, it has an enormous impact. i hear from constituents how
these regulations are out of touch, they'll reflect the basic fundamental understanding of the important sectors driving our economy, the daily lives of iowans and all americans. these regulations, which have the full force of law, are putting americans out of work and increasing costs for consumers. the reins act is an important, commonsense bill to help address this problem. we must do more, i appreciate chairman goodlatte's commitment to work with me on my fingerprints bill to ensure further transparency and accountability, by naming those who often write these regulations. thank you, chairman goodlatte, representative collins, for prioritizing the reins act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. there are approximately 2.8 million civil servants out there , americans who work for the federal government, that go to work every day, work hard, play by the rules, they have a good middle class job, your jobs are
at stake, federal employees, and there are those who say that we have too many federal employees. well, the number of federal employees that we have now is at the same level as they were in 2004, which was when president bush was in office. and basically we're at a 47-year low as far as the number of federal employees since 2013. the federal regulatory regime, which is just simply federal workers, federal civil servants, is not out of control, but your jobs are going to be lost when these republicans finish doing what they want to do to these regulations. with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for two
minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. my thanks to chairman goodlatte for his fine work on this important issue. i rise today in strong support of the reins act, because it fulfills a promise congress made to america's small business owners, onerous regulations off the back -- get onerous regulations off the back of job creators. it sets a very reasonable standard. if a new regulation has an economic impact of $100 million or more, it needs to come to congress for an up or down vote. congress will then have a say. we will debate the merits and then we will decide. the obama administration handed down a record breaking 600 major new regulations. imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on the u.s. economy, and millions of hours of compliance, busy -- compliance busy work on employers and employees across the country. all of that excessive red tape places a huge burden on small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs in new jersey, the
state i represent, and across the nation. i have toured quite a few businesses and the consensus is clear. let american workers innovate, build and create and not spend time complying with regulations that are impractical and often a waste of time and money. the reins act is constitutional. it does not violate the doctrine because it does not permit congress to overturn valid regulations. also, a joint resolution satisfies the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the constitution. the reins act will bring an important check against out-of-control federal regulations and foster stronger economic growth. it is an important start to the agenda for the 115th congress and i urge all of our colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia
reserves. the gentleman from georgia -- virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. the gentleman from georgia has 3 1/2 minutes remaining -- remaining. the gentleman from virginia has nine minutes remaining. mr. johnson: i'll reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i stand here today with an urgent plea to my colleagues. we were elected by the good men and women of the united states who believe in our vision of america, who believe in our dedication to doing whatever it takes to ensure the american dream is alive and achievable. it is for these reasons the reins act must pass. federal regulations imposed on the american job creators and households, an estimated $1.9 trillion burden in 2015, and who pays that? the american citizen does. and it costs on an average, as chairman goodlatte brought up, $15,000 per u.s. household.
can that money -- could that be better used to offset the cost of a college education? or maybe the staggering cost of health care due to the affordable care act? let me give you a real-life illustration from my district. a couple of years ago, a constituent, a dairy farmer, was targeted by an incredibly vague broad -- vague, broad woe tulls. the e.p.a. sued and won -- woe tulls. the e.p.a. sued and -- wotus. the e.p.a. sued and won the case because of the vagueness of this rule and determination in the court. it cost my constituent over $200,000 in fines and court costs for natural depression in his pasture that the e.p.a. determined could qualify as navigable waters. the rule states that any water or any land that becomes seasonably wet is affected. i live in florida. we get 54 inches of rain a year. that's my whole state of florida. this is down right outrageous. this is just one example of the
many times the e.p.a.'s overstepped its authority by enforcing vague regulations unfairly, on individuals. the reins act will prevent these costly job-killing regulations from going into effect and safeguard against federal bureaucrats, imposing heaviest burdens on the american economy. and this will increase the livelihood of the american people. i yield back and thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman goodlatte. i rise today in support of the reins act, h.r. 26, for any number of reasons. but i can't help but point out that i've heard my esteemed colleagues in opposition to this bill refer on multiple occasions to the federal bureaucracy as a well-oiled machine. mr. chairman, there are indeed
well-oiled machines that undergird this institution, but i would submit that the federal bureaucracy is not one of those. we've heard that the regulatory burden, as it relates to loss of jobs, is equal to a lysteria outbreak. what i would submit is if we could avoid an outbreak, would we not choose to do just that? while looking at the loss of jobs as related to federal regulations, we overstep the argument by avoiding the jobs not created as a result of federal regulations. should these things also not be amongst the items that we consider? a wise man once said that the bureaucracy will continue to expand to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy and in 2017 in the united states, indeed, it seems we finds ourselves in that very situation. an argument that the reins act is con strare to the constitution, i would submit, are 180 degrees out from the
truth. article 106 the constitution gives the power to make law to this legislative branch of our government and gives the power to generate revenue here as well as spend. the definition of law, according to the oxford dictionary is a system of rule which is a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its member which is it may enforce by the implementation of penalties. i would submit that the regulatory overreach we consider here today is tantamount to law and extra constitutional in and of itself. my esteemed colleague from pennsylvania suggested, and i agree, that the reins act is but a good start. the power to spend is article 1. the power to make laws is article 1. reins is a broader, or a rudd own the ship of constitutionality that will right that ship and move it only in the correct direction. regulations that have the power to take liberty or property
rights or the wealth of those earned by their own labor are tantamount to law and indeed extra -- extraordinary constitutionally as it relates to an executive branch entity and should not be exercised. mr. chairman, we hear that the people's house is responsible for this. the people's house is responsible for that well, the people's house is to ensure that the people have a voice in the matters of spending and law making that our founders who laid out article 1 of the constitution envisioned and currently that is simply not the case. h.r. 26 is simply a step back toward that right direction to constitutionality and with that in mind i strongly support the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: i yield one minute to my friend from the great state of colorado, representative perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter sprk thanks, mr.
speaker, -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: mr. speaker, the gentleman spoke about rule, today we're talking about bureaucrats. what we really should be talking about is the effect of this bill on our agencies and homeland security and our intelligence agencies given the unprecedented intrusion by the russians in our elections and other affairs of this nation. and if we don't stay focused on that liberty and the foundation for freedom that another country doesn't interfere with our affairs, we as members of congress are ignoring the oath that we just took two days ago. so i would suggest to my friends, i appreciate there can be overregulation. but i would suggest you have to look closely at how this bill affects our ability to protect
our liberties and our freedom. and i'm afraid it affects it badly in the face of interference that we haven't seen from another country since 1776. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, thank you so much. i come from the private sector. when i come to the house and listen to the debate going back and forth, i almost feel like i'm not from a different planet, but a different galaxy. when we talk about overregulation and the effects of unelected bureaucrats, leveling on the american people $2 trillion and an impact to the economy, then somebody ought to sit up an listen. all we're talking about is scrutiny. scrutiny of any piece of legislation, any executive order
that comes out, that's going to have an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. around here, $100 million sounds like nothing. where i'm from, it is unbelievable that we would even think that $100 million should be the point that we look at. what could be more common sense that that -- than to look at the heavy burden we're putting on everyday americans and saying that somehow, unelected bureaucrat who was never walked in their shoes, who have never done their job, who have never had to worry about meeting a payroll, never had to worry about regulations and taxation that make it impabble for them to compete and say, those, poor, stupid, folks just don't get it. 705,687 people in your districts are who you represent. whether they voted for you or not is not the point. the point is, we represent them. why would congress cede its power to the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats to determine what the american
people are going to be burdened with? it is just common sense. why can we not see what is right in front of us right now? i invite you to please go home to your district, walk in those shops, walk in those little towns, talk to those people and find out the two things that inhibit them from being successful are overtaxation and overregulation. we can handle both of those things right here in the people's house. this is not a democrat house. this is not a republican house. this is america's house. we should be looking at things that benefit the american people. if we truly want to act in a bipartisan way, let's stop this back and forth debate about what republicans want, what democrats want, and let's talk about what's good for the american people. that's who sent us. that's who the responsibility is, the burden we have on our shoulders. if we can't do that, we ought to go home. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is ecognized.
mr. johnson: thank you, i am prepared to close. mr. goodlatte: i have only one speaker remaining, i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman said he's prepared to close. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. as far as unelected bureaucrats re concerned, that we've heard people rail against, speaker after speaker today, those are nothing more than the civil servants that make our government work. they protect our water. protect our air. they protect us, as a matter of fact. f.b.i. the law enforcement. these are people, good people, who go to work every day, work hard, like my daddy, for instance, he was a civil servant.
i guess you could call him an unelected bureaucrat. but he did everything during his job that he needed to do and he retired with dignity. and there are so many others who work for the post office, they work for t.s.a., homeland security. doing nothing but working a job, honestly, and they deserve more than to be referred to derisively. and we need them. ut mr. chairman, i am in opposition to this legislation. we need real solutions for real problems. in stark contrast, however, the reins act attempts to address a nonexistent problem with a very dangerous solution. we need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity, not legislation that snatches that away.
we need sensible regulations that protect american families from economic ruin and that bring predatory financial practices to an end. we need workplace safety regulations that ensure hardworking americans who go to work each day are protected from hazardous environments on the job. we need strong regulations that protect the safety of the food that we eat and the air that we breathe and the watter that we drink. unfortunately, h.r. 26 does nothing to advance those critical goals. this explains why more than 150 organizations strongly oppose this legislation, including americans for financial reform, the american lung association, consumers union, the humane society of the united states, the league of conservation voters, public citizen, the american federation of state, county, and municipal employees. earth justice. the coalition for sensible safeguards. the american public health
association. the environmental defense action fund. the center for american progress. and the trust for america's health. i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose h.l. 26 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remainder of my time. during this debate, my friends on the other side of the aisle have raised quite a few false alarms. if this bill passes, why, all important regulation will stop, they say. that's not true. all regulation that is worthy of congress' approval will continue. if this bill passes, why, expert decision making will stop because congress will have the final say on new major regulations. not washington bureaucrats. that's not true. congress will have the benefit of the best evidence and arguments expert agencies can offer in support of their new regulation. congress is capable of determining whether that
evidence and those arguments are good or not and deciding what finally will become law. that is the job our founding fathers entrusted to us in the constitution. we should not shirk from it. i will tell you, though, what will stop if this bill becomes law, the endless avalanche of new major regulations, they impose massive, unjustified costs that crush jobs, crush wages and crush the spirits of america's families and small business owners. think about what that will mean to real americans who have suffered the real burdens of overreaching regulation. support the american people and listen to the major organizations across the country which i will, at the appropriate time, submit for the record who support h.r. 26, the reins act. support the american people. support the reins act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 115-1. each such amendment may be offered only in the order prinned in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand or division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek reck anything? mr. goodlatte: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-1. offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i offer this manager's amendment to ensure
that just as the reins act strengthens congress' check on rules that impose major new costs on the economy, it does not unduly delay the effect i haveness of mange new deregulatory actions, those that alleviate regulatory burdens of $100 million or more. when first introduced during the 112th congress, the reins act incorporated the definition of major rule in the underlying congressional review act, generally. a rule that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. this was done in the interest of consistency with prior terminology. and it's swept in both actions that imposed costs and actions that lifted costs. but especially after the regulatory onslaught we have witnessed during the obama administration, it is time to revise that definition. we should assure that the reins act focuses congress' highest attention on the rules that hurt the economy the most. those that impose $100 million or more in costs per year. we would like -- should likeways make sure that the reins act
does not impose additional hurdles in the way of the most important and desperately needed deregulatory actions, those that free the economy of $100 more or more in annual regulatory burdens. a deregulatory action with that level of economic effect is one that congress should be encouraging, not slowing down. this refinement of the reins act's major rule definition is also needed to ensure consistentcy with a major administrative procedure act reform legislation. the -- legislation the house is due to consider next week, the regulatory accountability act of 2017 that measure already modernizes the major rules standard for a.p.a. purposes to $100 million or more in annual costs imposed on the economy. the reins act should mirror it. i urge my colleagues to support this manager's amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in
opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. the goodlatte amendment clarifies that a major rule is any rule with an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more. adjusted for inflation. this amendment revises the bill's definition for a major rule to include any rule with an annual cost of $100 million or more as determined by the office of information and regulatory affairs, also known as oira. i oppose this amendment because it focuses only on the costs of regulatory protections, while completely overlooking the monetary benefits of these critical rules. it also strips oira's ability to consider the benefits of a rule in connection with a rule's costs. i don't understand the logic of that in 2015, the "washington ost" fact checker blog
criticized cost-only regulatory estimates as misleading. unbalanced. and having serious method logical problems. the president of public citizen like-wise observed in 2015 that ignoring the benefits of regulation is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money. that doesn't make any sense to me. even thomas donohue, president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, has stated that many of these rules we need, they're important to the economy and we support them. conceding that the benefits of regular protections must be considered hand in hand with their costs. indeed, under both democratic and republican administrations, the office of management and budget regularly has reported to
congress that the benefits of regulations far exceed the costs. during the three hearings on the reins act in previous congresses, we heard from three distinguished witnesses that the benefits of regulation routinely , routinely outweigh their costs , according to cost-benefit analysis done by the office of management and budget under administrations of both party as. for example, in the 112th congress, sali catson, a former administrator of the o.m.b.'s office of information and regulatory affairs, testified that, quote, numbers are striking. according to the o.m.b., the benefits from the regulations issued during the 10-year period from fiscal year 1999 through $128 billion to
$616 billion. i will repeat. benefits from regulations ranged $616 128 billion to billion. therefore, even if one uses o.m.b.'s highest estimate of costs and its lowest estimate of benefits, the regulations issued over the past 10 years have produced net benefits of $73 billion to our society. end quote. those are the words of sali catson. that 10-year time frame encompasses the clinton, bush and obama administrations. we also heard in the 112th congress from david goldstein, a former republican house committee chief of staff, who testified that, quote, administrations under both parties have reviewed the aggregate impact of regulations
and found their benefits to have exceeded their costs, and not all benefits are quantifiable, end quote. their testimony is bolstered by the office of management and budget's 2016 draft report to congress which notes that estimated annual benefits of major federal regulations reviewed by o.m.b. over the past decade, estimated annual benefits of regulatory protections are between $269 billion and $872 billion. while regulatory costs are between $74 billion and $110 billion. mr. speaker, i oppose this amendment, once again, because it focuses only on the cost of regulatory protections, while completely overlooking the monetary benefits of these
critical rules. and for that reason i oppose my colleague's amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time -- the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: only to urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and not lose the opportunity to benefit from deregulatory reforms that will grow our economy and save america's economy hundreds of millions of dollars. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the a.i.s have it. the amendment is agreed -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. aye -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. messer: i have and eament at -- amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2
printed in house report 114-1 offered by mr. messer of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from indiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for his help on this amendment as well. it's an amendment designed to take an already very good bill and make it just a little better. you know, a good friend of mine, former indiana governor mitch daniels, used to say, you'd be amazed how much government you'll never miss. when talking about reducing the size of government bureaucracy. so much of government's excess is created by unelected officials who yield enormous influence over our everyday lives. last year federal agencies issued 18 rules and regular lyings for every one law that passed congress. 53 t's a grand total of 3,8
regulations in 2016 alone. in 2015, federal regulations cost the american economy nearly $1.9 trillion. t, trillion dollars in lost growth and productivity. think about that for a second. $1.9 trillion tax, government burden, on the american people. that means lost jobs, stagnant wages, and decreasing benefits for workers. my amendment looks to help change all that. very simply, my amendment requires every agency issuing a new rule to first identify, then repeal or amend at least one existing rule. to offset any annual costs, the new rule would have on the u.s. economy. this isn't some new radical idea. president-elect trump announced
his administration will implement a new practice that for every new regulation, two would have to be repealed. governments in canada, the united kingdom, australia and the netherlands have all implemented sitch similar versions of -- similar versions of one in-one out when addressing new rules and regulations. in fact, in canada, bureaucrats use the new direction to find and cut more red tape than was even required by the law. my amendment gives the new administration that same flexibility. mr. chair, it's past time we stop bureaucratic abuse and shift the balance a of power from government back to the people, where it belongs. that can start today by passing the reins act and putting our government on a path to reduce the amount of red tape that our businesses and the american people deal with every day. mr. chair, i urge my colleagues to support the commonsense amendment and the underlying
bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. i oppose the gentleman's amendment, which would require that agencies offset the costs of new rules no matter how critical or mundane these protections may be prior to promulgating new rules. this proposal also referred to as regulatory cut-go appears as title 2 of h.r. 1155, the searching for cutting regulations that are unnecessarily burdensome act, or the scrub act. that was introduced in the previous congress. in the context of a veto threat of that bill, the obama administration cautioned that this requirement would make the process of retrospective
regulatory review less productive, and in the process, create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and that it would increase costs for businesses and for states, local and tribal governments, and it would also impede commonsense protections for the american public. by enacting -- excuse me, by enacting federal statutes tasked or tasking agencies with responsibilities, congress authorizes agencies to carry out matters that are too complex, routine or technical for congress itself to administrate. we must ensure that agencies have the proper flexibility to issue new protections without encumbering other regulations with political obstructions. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. messer: thank you. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from indiana for offering this amendment and i rise in support of it. the cumulative burden of federal regulation will surely be reduced by the reins act. but that burden has two elements. the burden being added by new regulations and the burden already there. this amendment adds a useful provision to the reins act to address the elimination of unnecessary burdens already in the code of federal regulations. it does so moreover in a manner that parallels president-elect trump's promise to pursue a policy of one in-two out when it comes to new regulatory actions by his administration. i support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's long past time to stop the runaway train of the
federal regulatory bureaucracy and i urge support for the amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the a.i.s have it. the amendment is agreed -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana -- 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 1114 -- 115-1, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr.
speaker. for years my republican friendses have been trying to convince everyone that federal agencies are scary, unpopular, and in reality, americans support federal rules that protect them from injuries, diseases and death. they always have and they always will. the people we represent don't want those rules to go away. they want stronger rules to protect their jobs, their pay, their health and their fair treatment in the workplace. let's remember that it takes years to finalize most rules. before an agency makes a rule, it considers science, cost, benefits, public stakeholder input and public comments. republicans have invented stories about surprise regulations that appear out of nowhere. these stories sound interesting until you realize they were invented to help their corporate friends get what they want. e know where this leads.
where this will lead us. big banks got away with robbing us and creating a major recession because they weren't regulated strongly enough. republicans think the answer is making it harder to regulate them. if this bill passes, it won't be the nameless, faceless, unelected corporate c.e.o.'s who feel the pain, it will be the americans from big cities and small towns who need federal standards to keep their environment clean, to keep their workplace safe and to make sure the products they buy won't hurt their families. my democratic colleagues are offering amendments today that exempt certain kinds of rules from the unrealistic burdens this bill creates. i support these amendments. my amendment is a little different. it's not nearly enough to -- the not nearly enough to save this terrible bill, but it takes a big step in the right direction. it acknowledges that doing nothing carries a major cost. it acknowledges human costs, climate change and requires