Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the majority leader and the committee chairs sent a letter to hundreds of government departments and agencies, saying stop, stop with the overregulation of our economy. It is time to stop this. We heard the results of the election loud and clear. This motion to recommit misses the forest through the trees, and the ever-increasing avalanche of Washington regulation is stifling job creation, suffocating recovery, and strangling our economy. Federal regulation since 1980 has been estimated to have cost this country $4 trillion worth of annual GDP--a full 25 percent--by 2012; and things have only gotten worse since then as the record-setting Obama administration has piled evermore costs on top. Now here they come again. Here is the list in fine print of over 180 new midnight regulations they want to jam through before the end of this administration. In administration after administration, the most abusive period of regulation has been the midnight rule period--the last, vanishing months of an outgoing administration as it seeks to cement the last pieces of its regulatory edifice in place. This is the time when the pace of executive branch regulation most easily overwhelms Congress' institutional capacity to check executive overreach. With one simple change to the Congressional Review Act--this bill--it will free Congress to disapprove any and all midnight regulations in one fell swoop. With one disapproval resolution, we can boldly restore Congress' Article I authority over lawmaking and check the abuse of midnight regulations. The motion carves out some rules that may be good, but we can always leave them out in the disapproval resolution under the bill, as written. Vote against this motion. Vote for this bill. Vote for job creation. Vote for the new administration. I urge my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment encourages two of the worst features of Washington bureaucracy. First, it gives heel-dragging, inefficient agencies a powerful incentive to take even longer to finalize rules proposed long ago to the public. This will only extend the regulatory uncertainty that hovers over job creators whenever new rules are proposed. Regulatory uncertainty freezes investment and job creation, and that is exactly what we do not need Washington to do. Second, the amendment gives agencies the incentive to cram even more rules into the abusive midnight rule period. We should be discouraging the use of midnight rules not encouraging it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate my friend and distinguished public servant, former Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, Jr., in the opening of a new exhibit in his honor at the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning. As the longest serving Secretary of the Army, this is a well-deserved recognition of his service and contributions to our country and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Secretary Marsh began his public service at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the United States Army during World War II where he served with occupation forces in Germany. After the war, Secretary Marsh pursued a career in law while continuing to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve and the Virginia Army National Guard, retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1976. In 1962, he was elected to represent the people of Virginia's Seventh Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives and served honorably for four terms. While serving in Congress, Secretary Marsh graduated from the Army's Airborne Infantry School, earning his Senior Parachutist Badge. In fact, he served during the Vietnam War without mentioning to his fellow soldiers that he was a sitting Member of Congress--a true display of his humble statesmanship. Following his service in Congress, Secretary Marsh served as Assistant Secretary of Defense and was a counselor to President Gerald Ford. In 1981, he was appointed as Secretary of the Army by President Ronald Reagan. He went on to serve as the Secretary of the Army until 1989, making him the longest serving Secretary of the Army in history. He served during the sweeping reconstruction of our military's organization, and helped implement the joint and more efficient Armed Forces we see today. Secretary Marsh has received six Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service awards, the Presidential Citizens Medal, the Doughboy Award, the Gerald R. Ford Medal for Distinguished Public Service, and is a member of the Army's Officer Candidate School Hall of Fame and the Ranger Hall of Fame. On September 16, 2016, the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning, Georgia, opened a new exhibit to honor Secretary Marsh's lifetime of service. It has been an honor to know Secretary Marsh and his family over the years. He is a native of Virginia and has deep roots in the Shenandoah Valley. As a fellow alumnus of Washington and Lee University, he is a true inspiration. As President Ford once said, ``Anyone who can make thirty-eight parachute jumps while serving as a Congressman has to be fairly calm and unflappable.'' I congratulate Secretary Marsh on this much-deserved exhibit. Future generations will forever recognize his immense contributions to our nation. I wish him and his family the best.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Ranking Member John Conyers and myself, I rise in recognition of the Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, Caroline Lynch, to bid her farewell as she leaves the House Judiciary Committee. Effective House staff is indispensable. And such a description is certainly fitting for Caroline. Every action she takes as Chief Counsel proves her unwavering commitment to conservative principles and to the rule of law. But after 15 years working on Capitol Hill, Caroline has decided to move back to her home state of Arizona to be close to her family, and to pursue the next steps in her career. Needless to say, we are very sad to see her go. After graduating from law school at Arizona State University, Caroline came to Washington, D.C., to work for Congressman John Shadegg from Arizona. She served both in his personal office and for him as Chief Counsel of the House Republican Policy Committee. In 2006 Caroline began as a Counsel on the Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee, and it was quickly apparent that she had found her calling. In 2008 Caroline became Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee. At the Committee, Caroline has had an enormous impact on the reform of our criminal and national security laws. In fact, few people in Washington have done as much to promote the safety of our communities. Caroline has overseen the drafting, negotiation, and passage of critical legislation regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the most sweeping set of reforms to government surveillance practices in nearly 40 years--the USA Freedom Act, among many other priority legislative initiatives. Aside from that, she manages a Subcommittee staff that works on some of the most important topics in the country--from oversight of many of the federal law enforcement agencies, to issues such as criminal justice reform, child exploitation, cybersecurity, human trafficking and encryption. Anyone who has met Caroline knows she is an immensely intelligent, hardworking, loyal and discerning Chief Counsel. And of course, those people she has negotiated with have found her to be a skillful and formidable but fair advocate. Evidence of her dedication and influence as Chief Counsel can be seen by what some of her colleagues and former bosses have to say about her. Former Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith says, ``Caroline is a good person and a very knowledgeable attorney. As chief counsel of the Crime Subcommittee, she has been a dedicated, conscientious, and hard- working public servant. She has had a major influence on crime legislation and on keeping Americans safe and secure. Her wonderful attitude, legal expertise, and commitment to good government will be missed greatly.'' Judiciary Committee Chief of Staff and General Counsel Shelley Husband says, ``When I first met Caroline, I was immediately struck by her intelligence, unparalleled grasp of criminal law, leadership ability and confidence, all attributes that I admire. Since that time, I have come to know Caroline's other virtues. In addition to being a brilliant lawyer, Caroline is immensely loyal, compassionate, honest and fair. And for that, she has earned my respect and affection. I am grateful every day that we are on the same side and if I'm going to be in the trenches on any issue, I want Caroline Lynch beside me.'' And Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel Branden Ritchie says, ``Caroline's expertise in criminal and national security laws and her ability to achieve legislative victories are apparent to all who work with her. She is also--without question--a natural leader. But what I have come to admire and respect most about Caroline is that she truly cares for and nurtures those she leads, she is loyal to those she serves, and she is a truth teller who is dedicated to doing what is right.'' Former Judiciary Committee Staff Director Joseph Gibson says, ``Caroline is an outstanding lawyer who knows her stuff and works tirelessly to get the policy right. She will be greatly missed.'' And another Former Judiciary Committee Staff Director Richard Hertling says, ``Few staffers are indispensable and irreplaceable, but Caroline comes as close as any I know. She reflects the very best among us. She knows both the law and the facts, and she takes the time to understand the real-world effects of everything she does. The country is better off for her service.'' George Fishman, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, says ``Caroline cares so much about the job she is doing--keeping the American people safe and preserving our Constitutional liberties. Through her tireless work, Caroline's imprint is all over our nation's criminal statutes. She is the quintessential congressional staffer--dedicated, caring, knowledgeable, a fierce advocate for her Member or Committee and yet respected by all.'' And Paul Taylor, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice says, ``Caroline is so dynamic, I've often thought there was both a Crime Subcommittee and a Caroline Subcommittee.'' Daniel Flores, Chief Counsel of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee says, ``Caroline created a brighter world for all of her colleagues on Committee, and a safer world for all Americans.'' And Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Courts Intellectual Property and the Internet, says ``The Judiciary Committee needs staff who understand the big picture and have an attention to detail while balancing numerous interests and priorities. Since Caroline so exceeded these requirements, her departure will leave very big shoes to fill. She will be missed by all.'' Andrea Loving, Deputy Chief Counsel of the Immigration Subcommittee, says, ``Caroline's vast knowledge of criminal and national security law and policy commands a respect like none other I have seen on Capitol Hill. Her departure is truly a loss for America.'' Even Caroline's colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize her expertise and are sad to see her leave Capitol Hill. Perry Apelbaum, the Committee's Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel says, ``I and our staff have very much enjoyed working with Caroline over the years. She has always been a great partner in accomplishing important work for our country. We will miss her and wish her the best.'' Bobby Vassar, former Democrat Chief Counsel of the Crime Subcommittee says ``As a Chief Counsel for almost 20 years, I had the opportunity to work with several Republican Chief Crime Counsels. Caroline was the best `enemy' I ever had. We often had diametrically opposed views to represent on some of the most controversial and contentious issues in the Congress, but were able to do so in a spirit of mutual respect that allowed us to disagree, vehemently at times, without being disagreeable.'' And Minority Oversight Counsel Aaron Hiller says, ``In any project that involves protecting the country, its people, or the prerogatives of this Committee, there is no one--and I mean no one--whom I would rather have on my team than Caroline Lynch. We will miss her very much.'' Joe Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel for Crime and Criminal Justice, says, ``The Crime staff on both sides of the aisle have worked together closely over the years to achieve many bipartisan successes, and Caroline was critical to each one of them. We have appreciated Caroline's openness and collegiality with her Democratic counterparts. She is a great lawyer, a strong advocate for making our nation safer, and will always be a valued friend.'' Of course, Caroline's team at the Subcommittee know her to be a determined leader and a steadfast friend. Bobby Parmiter says, ``Caroline is the definition of a `foxhole' person--exceptionally talented, dedicated, and tough. It is no exaggeration to say the American people are safer today than they would be had she not been doing this job over the past decade.'' Chris Grieco says, ``A tireless and dogged lawyer who has undoubtedly made the country a safer and more secure place because of her unparalleled knowledge of law enforcement and national security issues and her unwavering commitment to getting it right regardless of politics.'' Ryan Breitenbach says, ``Caroline is a dedicated public servant and Hill survivor, and one of the best bosses anyone can ask for. She is smart and nice, which in my opinion is the hopeful combination of any leader. Her love of her family draws her home, but not before she had given all she could to crafting our country's criminal and national security laws.'' And Jason Cervenak says, ``I met Caroline on her very first day working on the Judiciary Committee. In walked this petite red head with a smile from ear to ear and an infectious laugh. I immediately thought `she's going to get eaten alive.' Well, I think we all know I couldn't have been more wrong.'' We have appreciated Caroline's deep knowledge of criminal laws, the strength of her convictions, and her courage to speak the truth in a place where it is rarely convenient to do so. We will miss Caroline immensely. We wish her well in her new endeavors and we thank her for her years of dedicated service to this Committee, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the American people.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, fellowship, good will, and community service. These are the characteristics that Ruritan National clubs across the nation strive to achieve, and the principles that the Dayton Ruritan Club has embodied for the past 75 years. Chartered on September 30, 1941, the Dayton Ruritan Club is celebrating 75 years of service to the Dayton, Virginia, community. In rural areas across the country, neighbors look out for one another and help each other in good times and bad. Those principles are why the Dayton club came about--to help provide a hand up for friends and neighbors in need. A group of citizens saw a need in the community and worked to raise money and provide volunteer labor to help address those needs. Now, 75 years later, these men and women play an ever important role, having contributed over $700,000 and 180,000 volunteer hours to their community. In Dayton, Ruritan National Club Number 126 carries on this rich tradition of serving others and keeping it local. Every penny they raise through numerous fundraising events each year, including a bluegrass concert, pancake breakfast, and sandwich sales, goes towards projects to improve the place where they live. Whether it is providing dictionaries to every fifth grade student in Rockingham County or donating teddy bears for first responders to give to children, the projects have made a lasting impact on the community. Members are also actively working to mold the next generation of leaders by forming a Ruri-Teen Chapter at Turner Ashby High School and Wilbur Pence Middle School. While much has changed around them over the years, the Dayton Ruritan Club remains committed to the community they call home. Seventy-five years of service is a remarkable achievement, and I applaud the members of the Dayton Ruritan Club for their devotion to service. On October 13, members and friends will come together to celebrate their accomplishments and this milestone at the 75th Anniversary Banquet. I wish them many more years of success as they serve the Town of Dayton.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3537, the ``Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act''. I want to thank Congressman Katko and Congressman Dent for their work on this important legislation. Earlier this year, Congress passed S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. That historic legislation was vitally important because, today, the United States faces an epidemic of opioid abuse. More than 120 Americans are dying every day from overdoses. H.R. 3537 continues Congress's stated commitment to stem the tide of drug abuse and death, by placing 22 synthetic substances on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These 22 substances represent the ``worst of the worst'' synthetic drugs, and include three varieties of fentanyl, a powerful opioid which is all too familiar to Members of this body, as well as to our constituents, families, and loved ones. Fentanyl is up to 100 times more powerful than morphine, and has led to a rash of deaths across the country. The federal agencies charged with battling drug abuse--specifically, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse--have all concurred that these substances are the ``worst of the worst,'' and have no medicinal use. People are overdosing and dying because of them right now. Congress cannot sit on its hands and allow this to continue happening. I want to address a couple of misconceptions about this legislation. First, some have argued that the bill will prevent these substances from being researched. But that is a specious claim. Federal law permits schedule I controlled substances to be researched, via FDA- approved ``new drug'' applications and DEA schedule I research registrations. The application requirements are significant, but that is appropriate since, again, these drugs are the worst of the worst. If you are experimenting with these substances, which have killed people, you should be held to the highest standards of scientific research. Second, some of my colleagues have argued that this legislation would impose mandatory minimum sentences on people for simple possession of these synthetic substances. Again, this is erroneous. In order to receive a mandatory minimum sentence under the Controlled Substances Act, a defendant has to possess more than a certain amount of a drug that appears on a list in federal law. None of the synthetic substances in H.R. 3537 appear on that list. As a result, even with the passage of this bill the only way a defendant could be subject to a mandatory minimum is if a user suffers death or serious bodily injury after consuming the drug. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3537 is good, timely legislation that will criminalize some extremely dangerous substances that are killing American citizens. It is a stopgap, since a more comprehensive solution is needed down the road, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on comprehensive synthetic drug legislation. But Congress must pass this legislation now to get these substances off the streets now. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia. First of all, with regard to some of the examples given by the gentleman from Texas, I want to make clear that this is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that is being amended--foreign sovereign, not individuals. So if another country were to flip this and take action under their laws to do something in their courts, it would only apply to governments, not to individuals. So with regard to the assertions made by the gentleman from Virginia, many countries have already done what we are proposing to do here today. The whole tort rule that is utilized in the United States which says, just as an example, if you provided a bag of money to a terrorist in the United States, you can sue that foreign government in our country right now, in our courts right now. It would change so that if they provided the bag of money in Paris, you could do it there. Right now it is a loophole. Guess what? Any foreign government that wants to sponsor terrorism in the United States, what is the first thing they are going to do right now under current law? They are going to make sure that the money is transferred outside the United States so they are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Customary international law does not seem to require the entire tort limitation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto. It is the right thing to do. Justice is the right thing--to let American citizens have access to their courts for torts for terrorist attacks that occur on American soil. This bill is a modest amendment to already existing exemptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in overriding the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Properties would apply the territorial tort exception if the act or omission occurred in whole or in part in the territory of the state exercising jurisdiction. Most nations that have codified the exception appear to require some act or omission in their territories, but it is not clear that these nations have done so from a sense of international legal obligation rather than from comity. Even if customary international law were properly read to preclude a nation from applying the territorial tort exception solely on the basis of death and damage within its territory, the application of JASTA to the 9/11 cases, as an example, would still not violate international law since the 9/11 attacks clearly involved tortious acts in the United States. JASTA requires that the physical harm occur in the United States. But to have an exception that says that if people aid and abet from outside the United States, their government--the government--aids and abets from outside the United States, that government can evade the courts of the United States. That is wrong.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2040, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to point out one additional thing. Under JASTA, the President or his representative, the Secretary of State, can appear in the court where a lawsuit is brought and delay the proceedings for a period of time, but not forever. Then, if that time expires and whatever effort the United States has made to resolve this with a foreign government does not change the circumstances, they can still go back to the court and they can ask the court to delay further. But then it is up to the court to make that decision. Again, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Senate voted 97-1 to override the President's veto on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. I rise to urge my colleagues to follow the Senate's action and vote to override this veto so that Americans may seek judicial redress against any foreign government that chooses to sponsor a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The question that this veto override vote poses is whether we should allow those who harm our citizens to hide behind legal barriers that are required by neither the Constitution nor international law, or whether we should permit U.S. victims to hold those who sponsor terrorism in our country fully accountable in our courts. I think that the answer to this question is clear, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in overwhelmingly overriding the President's veto of JASTA. The changes JASTA makes to existing law are not dramatic, nor are they sweeping. JASTA amends the Anti-Terrorism Act to make clear that any person who aids, abets, or conspires with a State Department designated foreign terrorist organization is subject to civil liability for injury to a U.S. person. In addition, the legislation amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to add an exception to foreign sovereign immunity for acts of international terrorism sponsored by a foreign government that cause physical harm within the United States. The President objects to this change to the law on the grounds that it upsets principles of foreign sovereign immunity and that, by so doing, our national interests will be threatened by reciprocal treatment from abroad. The President's objections, however, have no basis under U.S. or international law. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act already has nine exceptions to sovereign immunity, including the territorial tort exception. This exception provides that a foreign country is not immune from the jurisdiction of our courts for injuries that it causes that occur entirely within the United States. Consistent with customary international law, JASTA, for terrorism cases, removes the current requirement that the entire tort occur within the United States and replaces it with a rule that only the physical injury or death must occur on U.S. soil. JASTA makes this change because, under current law, a foreign nation can provide financing and other substantial assistance for a terrorist attack in our country and escape liability so long as the support is provided overseas. For example, under current law, if the intelligence agency of a foreign government handed a terrorist a bag of money in New York City to support an attack on U.S. soil, the country would be liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's tort exception right now. However, if we change the fact pattern slightly so that rather than giving a terrorist money in New York City the money is provided in Paris, the foreign state will not be subject to liability in U.S. courts. This is a troubling loophole in our antiterrorism laws. When Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1976, it put in place a broad set of exceptions to sovereign immunity, including an exception for tort claims involving injuries occurring in the United States. However, the courts have not consistently interpreted those exceptions in such a manner that they cover the sponsoring of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. JASTA addresses this inconsistency with a concrete rule that is consistent with the nine longstanding exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity already provided for under U.S. law. JASTA ensures that those, including foreign governments, who sponsor terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are held fully accountable for their actions. We can no longer allow those who injure and kill Americans to hide behind legal loopholes denying justice to the victims of terrorism. I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Michigan makes reference to the administration's Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3438. The administration opposes this bill precisely because it would be effective. It would help to halt their regulatory overreach. The administration claims that this bill is unnecessary because rulemaking procedures already exist to ensure that new rules are as least burdensome as possible and produce a net benefit, and courts already can issue judicial stays. But the whole reason for this legislation is that the administration is ignoring such procedures. The courts rarely issue judicial stays, and by the time the courts finally strike down illegal rules, it is too late. For example, the administration lost in Michigan v. EPA because it failed to consider the costs and benefits of the rule which imposed about $10 billion in costs to achieve just $4- to $6 million in benefits. By the time the Court issued the ruling, huge sums had already been spent on compliance. These are resources that otherwise could have gone into productive jobs and investment rather than complying with an illegal rule. Our economy cannot afford this waste. Do not be fooled by the administration's fear-mongering about delaying rules addressing public safety emergencies. It is difficult to imagine a public safety emergency requiring a billion-dollar rule to solve. Indeed, we reviewed a list of billion-dollar rules issued since 2000, and not one responds to an immediate public safety emergency. Even if there were such a case, imposing costs of that magnitude for whatever reason should be made by elected representatives accountable to the people, not agency bureaucrats. Instead of recommending a veto of this bill, the President's senior advisers should recommend agencies faithfully follow rulemaking procedures so Congress does not have to shorten the leash even further. Billion-dollar rules are a fast-growing plague inflicted by Washington's out-of-control regulators on small businesses and ordinary citizens throughout the land. According to a 2014 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 30 billion-dollar rules since the year 2000 are imposing roughly $100 billion a year in costs on our struggling economy. The American Action Forum reports that the Obama administration plans to impose at least another $113 billion in regulatory costs before it leaves office, and this is on top of the estimated $2 trillion-plus in total costs from Washington regulators that are crushing our economy and strangling economic recovery. It is time for measures that shout, ``Stop,'' to Washington's regulators and force them to find a better way. That is exactly what this bill does. It imposes automatic stays when new billion-dollar rules are challenged in court so small businesses and hardworking Americans don't have to bear the crushing cost of illegal rules while they pursue their rights in court. It creates a powerful incentive for agencies tempted to zoom past the billion-dollar mark to stop, turn around, and find a less costly way to achieve the same benefits for the American people. Hopefully, once this bill becomes law, we will stop seeing needless billion-dollar rules. And if we ever do need a billion-dollar-a-year solution, this bill will help make sure regulators leave it to the accountable Members of Congress to make such monumental policy decisions by statute. I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the REVIEW Act applies to all new billion-dollar rules. That is for one simple reason: the harm that wasting billions of dollars in unnecessary compliance costs does to job creation, productive investment, and economic recovery. Those costs should not have to be incurred during ultimately successful litigation challenging new billion-dollar rules. The amendment is concerned primarily with transfer rules that authorize the flow of funding between Federal healthcare accounts for seniors. With respect to those rules, there is no need for concern that the bill would impede the operation of those rules. To my knowledge, there has never been a billion-dollar transfer rule, much less one affecting seniors, that has been challenged in court, nor am I am aware of any reason to expect that one ever will be challenged. The bill, of course, only requires a stay if a timely challenge to a rule is brought in court. As for other rules that may be within the amendment's scope, if such rules are needed, then agencies can avoid the bill's application by coming up with effective regulations that cost less than $1 billion a year. That is a goal to be pursued, not blocked. If, in an unusual case, the needed solution truly must cost a billion dollars a year or more, then the decision to adopt that solution is a decision Congress should make, not an agency. Congress, moreover, can make that decision without hindrance of litigation through fair and open consideration and debate by the people's Representatives, not unaccountable bureaucrats. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2315, currently under consideration.