Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act Congressional Approval Procedures regulations that the Office of Management and Budget determined will lead to net job creation. The danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives OMB to manipulate its analysis of a major regulations job impact. Far too often, OMB may be tempted to shave the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement. In addition, regulations alleged to create 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. EPA and 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's no guarantee that all of the new green jobs will ever actually exist. And I would cite Solyndra as perhaps the best evidence of promised jobs that don't exist and cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars. 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 Congress. It rejects the way Washington has operated for far too long, where there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials. The amendment would undermine that fundamental choice. Let me give you a few examples of this: Regulatory agencies routinely estimate the benefits and costs of regulatory changes under the assumption that any individuals that become unemployed are instantly and constantly reemployed in nearly identical jobs. But the EPA's employment impact analysis is frequently flawed because it fails to account for the cascading employment effects of regulation across interconnected industries and markets. Using the proper full economy model, NERA Economic Consulting found that the EPA's Utility MACT Rule would have a negative impact equivalent to 180,000 to 215,000 lost jobs in 2015, versus the EPA's claim of 8,000 net new jobs, and which, therefore, wouldn't come to the Congress, even though private consultants say it would lose over 200,000 jobs. EPA claims it would create 8,000 jobs. The EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule would have had an economic impact equivalent to the annual--annual--loss of 34,300 jobs from 2013 through 2037 versus the EPA's claimed 700 jobs gained annually. Finally, the EPA's industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology--or MACT--Rule would have a negative impact equivalent to 27,585 jobs per year on average from 2013 through 2037, compared with the EPA's claim of 2,200 per year claim. All of this goes to show that this would be a shell game allowing the executive branch to claim job increases when actually there are massive job losses and, therefore, avoid the scrutiny of the people's House and the entire United States Congress where these massive regulations should come back for review and approval before they're implemented, and before they cost those kind of jobs to Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that, when it comes to regulatory safety, the gentleman cites the Congressional Review Act. I'll remind the House that, as I noted earlier, since 1996, it's been used one time for ergonomic furniture. That is not a very good track record when tens of thousands of regulations have been passed during that time that should be reviewed by this Congress. This legislation only asks that those regulations that cost more than $100 million should be reviewed. But it's especially true of the most important regulations related to, for example, the nuclear power industry where safety is a very important standard, as is efficiency and making sure that the American people have the electric power generation that they need. So the Congress has great incentive to reach quick agreement on regulations like that, and it's very important that we have that jurisdiction. But many regulations are not needed; they cost jobs in our economy. I know those on the other side of the aisle have been citing academics who claim that that's not the case. But I want to call attention to one more academic who wrote just on January 18, 2011. He said: Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. That academic's name is Barack Obama, and he is currently the President of the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment carves out of the REINS Act Congressional Approval Procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety standards. REINS Act supporters believe in nuclear safety. We want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made. That is precisely why I oppose the amendment. By its terms, the amendment shields from the REINS Act Congressional Approval Procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them. All major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards, whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the REINS Act. That way, agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety will know that Congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. It is a solution that everyone should support because it makes Congress more accountable and assures agencies will write better rules. All Americans will be safer for it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the statistics about the delays in poor performance at the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to veterans' claims are reasons to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. The amendment carves out of the REINS act congressional approval procedures all regulations that affect veterans and Veterans Affairs. We want to guarantee that the regulatory decisions that affect them are the best decisions. That's why major regulations that affect veterans and Veterans Affairs, like all other major regulations, should fall within the REINS Act. Under the legislation, agencies with authority over veterans' issues will know that Congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect. That provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best possible regulations, ones that Congress can easily approve. Congress will have every incentive to approve good regulations and every incentive to disapprove regulations that have led to the kind of delays and uncertainty that veterans face today. That's a solution that everyone should be able to support. Congress will be more accountable, agencies will write better rules, and veterans and all Americans will reap the benefit. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I'm going to support his amendment. I share my colleagues's desire to curb the abuse of agency guidance documents and other agency directives, statements, and actions that too often have escaped adequate congressional scrutiny. The amendment brings within the scope of the Congressional Review Act and the REINS Act rules of agency practice, procedure, and management that could be abused but otherwise would escape a congressional check and balance. It is a measured first step in reining in agency excess, and I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future to see if we can identify additional ways to rein in abusive agency practices and guidance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and would just say in opposition to this amendment again, Members only need to look to the bill itself to see that the process in the Senate will not tolerate filibusters at any point in the process from start to finish. Let me also point out that the American people care very much about how disasters are handled, and so do elected representatives of the American people. But we are talking about regulations written by the agency that cost more than $100 million. Those regulations, if they are written wrong--and many people would suggest that the Department of Homeland Security has gotten it wrong many times with regulations from the TSA, for example--those regulations should come back to this Congress for review. The American people have the first and foremost place to look for leadership on these issues in the Congress of the United States, the people's House, and the United States Senate, and not to government regulatory agencies. Yes, they need to write regulations, but they shouldn't have the final say, particularly on the most expensive regulations affecting our economy. Money that is diverted--money that is diverted--to pay for unnecessary regulations is money that can't be spent to address other problems that we have in this country or to pay down our national debt. That's what is important, and that's why this amendment should be defeated. We need to have common sense brought to our regulatory process. The REINS Act does it. The REINS Act reins in unnecessary burdensome regulations, it helps protect American jobs, and it ought to be protected, and that includes protected from unnecessary or burdensome regulations in the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I believe all of the speakers on our side have spoken. I reserve the right to close, and at this time, I await the gentleman's actions. Then I will be happy to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is my pleasure to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I say to the gentlewoman, my colleague from Wisconsin, that this House is very proud of the fact that we worked in a bipartisan fashion to pass all of those bills. I have absolutely no doubt that if, after we pass those bills, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies affecting veterans didn't do the work properly and didn't get it done right that this Congress would again work in a very bipartisan fashion to say, No, you didn't get it right. Get it right. That's what this is all about. That's why the REINS Act is important. It's not just for every other American, but also for veterans. This is something that will improve the regulatory process. There is another study that talks about the creation of jobs, which are important to our veterans who have returned and are looking for employment in this country. This is a study by the Phoenix Center, and it's entitled, ``Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An Empirical Study.'' It was performed by three Ph.D.'s and a lawyer. What could be better than that? I want to read from part of the abstract. It says: Even a small 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget, about $2.8 billion, is estimated to result in about $75 billion in expanded private sector GDP each year with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million-dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs. This is a study that shows conclusively that we're right when we say that the REINS Act will help to create jobs in this country and the current regulatory morass that we're facing in this country is costing American jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier this month, President Obama announced that he would, once again, pivot to the economy. The bottom line of his speech, after 4\1/ 2\ years of the Obama administration: ``We're not there yet.'' The President is right: we're not there yet. Economic growth is the key to job creation and recovery, but America's growth rate is historically anemic. From 2010 through 2012, it averaged barely 2 percent. In the fourth quarter of 2012, growth was just four-tenths of one percent. In the first two quarters of this year, growth averaged only 1.4 percent according to the most recent estimates. These dismal figures translate into deep economic pain for America's workers and families. The June 2013 jobs report showed an increase of 240,000 in the number of discouraged workers, those who have simply quit looking for a job out of frustration or despair. The number of people working part-time, but who really want full-time work, passed 8.2 million. That represents a jump of 322,000 in just 1 month. Worst of all, the truest measure of unemployment, the rate that includes both discouraged workers and those who cannot find a full-time job, continues to exceed 20 million Americans. That rate rose from 13.8 percent back to 14.3 in June. America's labor force participation rate has fallen to levels not seen since the Carter administration. Median real household income, meanwhile, is 5 percent lower than in June of 2009, when the recession officially ended. Median incomes are supposed to rise during economic recoveries, not fall. The Obama administration, however, has managed to buck the historical trend. Worse, median incomes remain 9 percent below the peak they reached in January 2008, before the financial crisis. The President is indeed right: we're not there yet. But what the President missed in his speech is that it is his administration's policies that are responsible for America still remaining so deep in this economic hole. To see how true that is one only has to look at the historical record. The current recovery is the weakest on record in the post-World War II era. The contrast with the recovery Ronald Reagan achieved is particularly stark. Four-and-a-half years after the recession began in 1981, the Reagan administration, through policies opposite to the Obama administration, had achieved a recovery that created 7.9 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 percent. Surely, the administration knows this. But instead of fixing the problem by changing its policies, the Obama administration knows only one response: double down, increase taxes, increase spending, and increase regulation. The number of new major regulations the Obama administration has issued and plans to issue--generally, regulations with more than $100 million in impacts--is without modern precedent. Testimony before the Judiciary Committee this term and during the 112th Congress has plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation and declining levels of jobs and growth. To make matters worse, it is increasingly the case that, when Congress refuses to enable the administration's flawed policies through legislation, the administration unilaterally issues new regulations to achieve an end run around Congress. The REINS Act is one of the most powerful measures we can adopt to put an end to regulation that wrongheadedly imposes the administration's flawed policies on the American people. It achieves that result in the simplest and clearest ways--by requiring an up-or- down vote by the people's representatives in Congress before any new major regulation can be imposed on our economy. Some say the REINS Act will mean an end to new major regulation, even when regulation is needed. But the REINS Act does not prohibit new major regulation. It simply establishes the principle: no major regulation without representation. By restoring to Members of Congress, who are accountable to the American people, the responsibility for America's costliest regulatory decisions, the REINS Act provides Congress and, ultimately, the people with a much-needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet turned by the Obama administration and Washington's regulatory bureaucrats. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the REINS Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 367.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I regret that a meeting at the Whtie House caused me to miss the first vote series on August 1, 2013. Had I been present, my intention was to vote as follows on the amendments to H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act: ``no'' on the Waxman Amendment, ``no'' on the Connolly Amendment, and ``yes'' on the Murphy (PA) Amendment. I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1582 and ``yes'' on Passage on H.R. 1582. Further I would have voted ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on the combined rule for the REINS Act, Keep IRS Off Health Care Act, and the Stop Government Abuse Act. Finally, I would have voted ``yes'' on the passage of H.R. 1897, the Vietnam Human Rights Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I, along with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Ranking Member Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, would like to take this opportunity to thank Bobby Vassar for his work with the House Committee on the Judiciary and Congressman Scott's Congressional office for the past 19 and \1/2\ years. Bobby came to Representative Scott's Congressional office on February 1, 1994 to serve as Senior Counsel and Legislative Director. He joined the staff of the Crime Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary in March of 1999 as Minority Chief Counsel. From January 2007 to January 2012, Bobby served as Majority Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee. Prior to joining Representative Scott's office in 1994, he worked for three Virginia governors, starting as Chairman of the Virginia Parole Board in 1982 and ending as Acting Secretary of Health and Human Resources in 1994. Prior to 1982, he worked as Executive Director of the Peninsula Legal Aid Center in Hampton, Virginia, for which Congressman Scott served as Chairman of the Board. He also held positions previously as Assistant Vice Chancellor for Administration at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as a staff attorney with the Laborer's Pre-paid Legal Services Plan of Washington, D.C. and Vicinity, and as a Reginald Heber Smith Community Lawyer Fellow at the Roanoke Virginia legal Aid Society. Bobby is a graduate of Norfolk State University and the University of Virginia School of Law. Bobby's ability to work well with his colleagues, especially across the aisle and across the Capitol, made him a valuable staff asset to passing many key pieces of legislation. He had the lead staff responsibility in the House for several significant bipartisan bills that were enacted into law including the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment, and Crime Reduction Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-416); the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220); the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-297); the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (Public Law 107-273); the Second Chance Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-199); along with dozens of other bills enacted into law over the years. He also led the development of the Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education (PROMISE) Act which was introduced in the 110th Congress and has been reintroduced every subsequent Congress; H.R. 1695, the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013; H.R. 2656, the Public Safety Enhancement Act of 2013; and many promising bipartisan bills pending in the House and Senate. We are deeply appreciative of the service and contributions Bobby has provided the Crime Subcommittee, the Judiciary Committee and the Congress over the past two decades. Throughout that time, many people both on and off Capitol Hill have been fortunate to call him a colleague and friend. He will be missed. We wish him the best of fortunes and fulfillment in his future endeavors.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the great work of the gentleman from Georgia on this issue and thank him. Mr. Speaker, all across the country, Americans are asking one question: Why wasn't the mandate on them delayed? If the systems aren't in place for businesses to abide by this law by the deadline, why does the administration think that the systems will be in place for the individual mandate? If a delay is good for businesses, why isn't it good for the families in the 6th District of Virginia and across the Nation? When Members refer to ObamaCare as a train wreck, they only quote one of its chief architects. This announcement proves even the administration knows ObamaCare is headed towards devastation. Let's get businesses, as well as American families, off this train headed towards disaster. We need to delay the employer mandate, we also need to delay the individual mandate, but most importantly, the American people need a full repeal of this train wreck legislation.

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. We 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, we 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 June 28, 2013, the members of the Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 113th 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). We 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I regret that I was detained at the beginning of the vote series on June 28, 2013 during votes on amendments to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Had I been present, my intention was to vote ``no'' on the DeFazio Amendment and ``yes'' on the Broun amendment. Again, I regret that I was detained. Amendment No. 10, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Grayson

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Agriculture Committee, to close our debate.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Brown said was up to 32 cents a gallon. At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).