Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule pertaining to health or public safety. Health and public safety regulation, done properly, serves important goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. But Federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an immense part of total Federal regulation and has been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job- and wage- destroying regulations. To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would be to severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower the crushing cumulative cost of Federal regulation and increase the accountability of our regulatory system to the people. These include regulations such as the Environmental Protection Agency's multi-billion-dollar Utility MACT regulations. The Supreme Court recently invalidated those regulations, but not before the targets of the regulations had to spend multiple years' worth of compliance costs. Had the REINS Act been in place, Congress could have refused to approve those regulations to begin with, saving billions of dollars in unnecessary cost. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I urge support for the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures all regulations from the Department of Veterans Affairs that concern the availability of affordable medication and effective healthcare management for veterans. Affordable medication and effective healthcare management for veterans are goals every Member of Congress can support, but every Member of Congress also knows the Department of Veterans Affairs' appalling recent incompetence and negligence in administering its programs. Rather than diminish the Department's accountability to Congress for regulatory decisions concerning veterans' health care, we should increase the Department's accountability. That is precisely what the REINS Act does. Under the legislation, the Department will know that Congress must approve its major regulations concerning affordable medication and effective healthcare management before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the Department to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to just say that the fact of the matter is we are not talking about voodoo economics here. We are talking about representative democracy. The American people elect their Representatives from 435 congressional districts; 50 States elect their Senators, and they send us to Washington, D.C., to write the laws of the land. The laws that the gentleman referred to were all written by the United States Congress, signed into law by various Presidents. Then those laws are turned into regulations, and that is where there is no more representative democracy. The bureaucracy that writes the regulations has no accountability. They write regulations that cost too much, that strangle the job creation that we both--the gentleman from Georgia and I would like to see greater job creation and more jobs for the middle class in this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. This bill is about restoring representative democracy to the American people and fairness to the American people and protecting their economy and protecting their jobs by making sure that bureaucrats are held accountable and send those regulations back to the Congress for an up- or-down vote that, yes, those regulations comport with what the Congress intended when they wrote the law--or don't comport. If they comport, they take effect; if they don't, they don't take effect. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, which would be badly undermined by this amendment, which would remove from Congress the ability to determine which regulations make sense and which don't, which regulations comport with the underlying law that the Congress passed and which do not. That is the key to this legislation, and it is the key to why Members should oppose this amendment. I urge them to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act's congressional approval procedures regulations that the Office of Management and Budget determines will lead to net job creation. The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives the OMB to manipulate its analysis of a major regulation's jobs impacts. Far too often, the OMB will be tempted to shade the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement. In addition, regulations alleged to create net new jobs often do so by destroying real, existing jobs and creating new, hoped-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. For example, some Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act rules will shut down existing power plants. The EPA and the OMB may attempt to justify that with claims that more new ``green'' jobs will be created as a result. In the end, that is just another way in which government picks the jobs winners and the jobs losers, and there is no guarantee that all of the new ``green'' jobs will ever actually exist. The REINS Act is not intended to force any particular outcome. It does not choose between clean air and dirty air. It does not choose between new jobs and old jobs. Instead, the REINS Act chooses between two ways of making laws. It chooses the way the Framers intended, in which accountability for laws with major economic impacts rests with the Congress--the elected Representatives of the people. It rejects the way Washington has operated for too long, where there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials. The amendment would undermine that fundamental accountability, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reforms regulations that concern natural gas or hazardous materials pipeline safety or the prevention of oil spills and their adverse impacts. We all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harm from pipeline spills, but there is no assurance that the amendment would guarantee the achievement of those goals. On the contrary, the amendment would shield from congressional accountability procedures regulations that actually threaten to decrease safety. They also would shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new, ideologically driven regulations intended to impede Americans' access to new sources of inexpensive, clean, and plentiful natural gas. This amendment clearly says that the Congress can and has voted to have pipeline accountability and safety measures regulated but that the Congress doesn't care what those regulations are. The Congress does care what the regulations are, and that is why they should come back here so that the Congress can confirm that the regulations written comport with the legislation already passed. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment says is, because the Department of Veterans Affairs is doing a remarkably bad job of providing timely health care to citizens, we should carve out that Department's responsibility for providing medications and timely health care and exempt it from the accountability that Congress, the elected representatives of the people, who are very responsive to the needs of veterans, would impose. With the REINS Act, Congress could instruct, with the passage of legislation to help veterans, and say, ``You must report back regulations within a certain time period,'' which the Congress could then act upon in a timely fashion, assuring themselves that not only have the regulations been done quickly, but also that they are going to address the problems in an effective way that we have all identified with what is going on in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will simply preserve the bad system we have now for helping our veterans through a Department of Veterans Affairs that is unaccountable. We should, instead, make them more accountable by passing the REINS Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The REINS Act is intended to make sure that Federal Government regulations get it right--solve the problem intended to be solved by the Congress in the manner intended by the Congress. Supporting this amendment would defeat that purpose; so I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I support his amendment. The REINS Act restores to Congress the accountability for regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. This amendment strengthens congressional accountability for regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. The PPACA was imposed over the will of the American people. Implementation of ObamaCare has demonstrated that the act imposes a detrimental and unworkable reform of the Nation's healthcare system; and one after the other, promises made to the American people by the act's supporters when the law was passed have been broken. Moreover, the Obama administration's own actions to waive or suspend ObamaCare requirements have made clear that regulatory actions to implement the act form a ``seamless web.'' Too often, actions to avoid one adverse effect of the act's implementation send ripple effects of unfairness or other harmful consequences throughout the ObamaCare web, requiring adjustments of other aspects of implementation. This, too, justifies the amendment's requirement that Congress approve any new regulations promulgated under the act. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the elected Representatives of the people are the best ones to be held accountable for the laws and regulations passed and adopted in this country, including those that protect children. This would turn back to a situation where unelected bureaucrats can take whatever time they want to, write whatever regulation they want to, and then that would take effect without the Congress having to have the ability to say, yes, that truly will protect children or, no, that will not protect children. We should have that responsibility. That is something that the American people expect from their elected representatives. For that reason, I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support his amendment. Mr. Chair, the REINS Act restores to Congress the accountability for regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. By doing that, it ultimately strengthens the ability of the people to hold Washington accountable. There could hardly be a better way to ensure that Congress will exercise its authority under the bill soundly and that the people can hold Congress and Washington accountable than through the gentleman's amendment. This amendment guarantees that, when agencies publish new regulations, they will let Congress and the people know immediately how to access online the key scientific, economic, and cost-benefit information on which the agencies base the regulations. With this real-time access to information in hand, Congress will be better positioned to scrutinize the agencies' decisions, and the public will be better positioned to hold Congress accountable if Congress approves regulations that it shouldn't. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 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 regulations will stop, they say; but that is not true. All regulation that is worthy of Congress' approval will continue. If this bill passes, why, expert decisionmaking will stop because Congress will have the final say on new major regulations, not Washington bureaucrats; but that is not true. Congress will have the benefit of the best evidence and arguments expert agencies can offer in support of their new regulations. 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 is the endless avalanche of new, major regulations that do not deserve Congress' approval because 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 suffering the real burdens of the Obama administration's overreaching regulations. Let me tell you about some of them who have testified before the Judiciary Committee. Think of Rob James, a city councilman from Avon Lake, Ohio, a small town that has faced devastation by ideologically driven, anti-fossil fuel power plant regulations. These regulations were expected to destroy jobs in Avon Lake, harm Avon Lake's families, and make it even harder for Avon Lake to find the resources to provide emergency services, quality schools, and help for its neediest citizens--all while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions that were the stated target of the regulations. The Supreme Court just invalidated those regulations, but not before multiple years of job-crushing compliance costs had to be borne by those who challenged the rules. Think of Bob Sells, from my district. He runs a Virginia-based division of a heavy construction materials producer. His company and its workers were harmed by EPA cement kiln emission regulations that were technically unattainable and vastly changed from what the EPA proposed for public comment, other EPA emission regulations that were stricter than needed to protect health, gerrymandered to impose expensive controls on other types of emissions, and that prohibited commonsense uses of cheap and safe fuel that could eventually help the environment and the Department of Transportation regulations that, without increasing safety, vastly increased recordkeeping for ready-mix concrete drivers, unnecessarily limited their hours, and suppressed their wages. This is what the REINS Act will stop: overreaching, unjustified, immensely costly regulation that, unless Congress stands up to protect the American people, this administration will continue to load on to the backs of struggling American families and small-business owners. Support the American people. Support the REINS Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the REINS Act's reforms regulations intended to protect young children and infants from harm. Child safety is a goal all Members share, but to shield bureaucrats who write child safety regulations from accountability to Congress is no way to guarantee child safety. The only thing that that would guarantee is less careful decisionmaking and more insulation of faceless bureaucrats from the public. Congress needs a better mechanism to make sure that Washington bureaucrats make the right decision to protect child safety when we delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bad amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, F. James Sensenbrenner, Trey Gowdy, Jerrold Nadler, Jose Serrano, Karen Bass and I would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. I hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues. Of the four House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all Private Bills are referred. Private Bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only. Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were Private Laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available, passed 1,031 Private Laws, as compared with 434 Public Laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 Private Laws and 443 Public Laws--a better than three to one ratio. Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62nd Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause six which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935. A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that Act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills; first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record. This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and Cold War flood for private immigration bills. The 82nd Congress passed 1,023 Private Laws, as compared with 594 Public Laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 Private Laws compared with 666 Public Laws. Under rule XV, clause five, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House. On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained Bills un-objected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole. On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection. Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately. Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follow the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors Committee, the system the House has established to deal with Private Bills. The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the Floor ready to object to any Private Bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Should any Member have a doubt or question about a particular Private Bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their staff, or from the Member who introduced the bill. The amount of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. With this agreement of July 28, 2015 the members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 114th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of seven (7) legislative days, excluding the day the bill is placed on the calendar and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for three (3) calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement. This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended. This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I feel confident that I speak for my colleagues when I request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance considerations to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte. F. James Sensenbrenner. Trey Gowdy. Jerrold Nadler. Karen Bass. Jose Serrano.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on the floor of this House in 2011, the President of the United States promised the American people to reduce barriers to growth and investment: ``When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them.'' Mr. Speaker, those were just the President's words. His actions have been starkly different. Throughout the entire 6-plus years of the President's administration, a flood of new major regulations has been burying America's job creators and households at record levels. To make matters worse, when Congress declines to legislate the President's misguided policies for him, he takes his pen and his cell phone, and he increasingly resorts to unilateral regulatory actions to legislate by executive fiat. The REINS Act, in one fell swoop, puts a stop to that and ensures that Congress, the body which the Constitution assigns the power to legislate, will possess an additional check on the most significant legislative decisions imposed on the American people through regulation. The motion to recommit seeks only to distract from the urgent needs to reform our regulatory system and reduce unnecessary burdens on the public. I think Americans are tired of the other party telling them that their bureaucrats know better than their own elected officials. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, reject this motion to recommit, and show America that Congress can act for the good of American job creators and Americans who desperately want and need jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

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