Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 6,000 veterans signed a petition opposing the ATF rule, so I hope that is enough to convince the other side. However, I now switch to two other bills that are in this rules package because this is Groundhog Day. We will be here again. The administration does something which has the effect of law, and then we are feckless to change it. There have been over 90,000 rules promulgated since the Congressional Review Act was put into place. Only 20 rules have ever been countermanded because it is such a high bar to get a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate and the President to sign something to undo a law. How did it become law? Just because the administrative branch willed it into existence. Our Constitution says: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.'' Does it say, and also an ATF or also an EPA? No, it does not. It says House and Senate. Does it say, some legislative powers? No. It says, all legislative powers are vested in Congress. The REINS Act would do quite a bit to restore our power. Not enough, though, because the Chevron deference still exists. The other bill in this package is the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, which is a legislative repeal of the tragic Chevron deference that has plagued this country for so many years, where the Supreme Court gives full latitude, broad authority to the administrative branch to twist and contort the laws that we make in creating new laws. I urge people to vote for this rule because it includes these two packages, which put our Republic back into a structure that our Founding Fathers envisioned, where the legislators make the laws, and the administration enforces the laws. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The REINS Act, which I would argue is the most important part of these five bills, is here, and we are debating it today because my constituent, Lloyd Rogers--who grew up in an orphanage in Kentucky, where he met his future wife in that same orphanage--sent this idea for this bill to his Congressman who preceded me. Lloyd Rogers served in the Army during the Korean war. Then he came home, and he served as a county judge executive. He was shocked when he was trying to serve the people in his community at how many of the rules and regulations that tied his hands were never passed by Congress. He wrote this bill, and he sent it to his Congressman. By the way, he and his wife were married for 65 years, and Lloyd turned 90 on Saturday. He is watching this debate. This is how our Republic is supposed to work. Laws aren't supposed to come from unelected bureaucrats with no accountability. They are supposed to be ideas that people in our communities have that would make their lives better, and then we are accountable to them, so when they talk to us, we have to listen. They can throw us out every 2 years. Maybe they should throw more of us out every 2 years. Lloyd came to his Congressman and said, please, put this bill on the floor. It went to legislative counsel. The Congressman introduced this bill, and it has been very popular. It is one of the most popular bills among the American people because they know the structure of our government intended by our Founding Fathers was for us to write the laws and for the administrative branch to execute the laws, not to write them themselves. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, which contains five bills that I urge the passage of.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a cost estimate for H.R. 277 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 277.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Even before America declared its independence, John Adams emphasized that a republic is a government of laws and not of men. That is what we are here to debate tonight. Are we a government of laws or a government of the executive branch? Are we going to allow the executive branch to write the laws? Are we going to turn our Constitution on its head? Have we gone too far already? I would argue we have, and that is why we need the REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. It provides that every major regulation that the administration seeks to promulgate has to come to Congress first, has to be passed by concurrent majorities in the House and the Senate and signed by the President. This is exactly what our Founders prescribed. This is a bill about who makes the laws in our country, and it is about reclaiming our legislative power from the administrative state. I think it is appropriate to read from our Constitution at this point. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: ``All legislative powers . . . `' not some legislative powers. ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' Does it say it shall consist of a bureaucracy? It does not. All legislative powers are vested here and in the Senate. That is why we need to stop letting the executive branch make law. Are they merely tweaking regulations? Are they determining the amount of sulfur dioxide that is acceptable to release from a power plant with civil infractions imposed if a company doesn't comply? No, they are making laws that put people in prison over in the administrative branch, and we are doing nothing about it. We have atrophied. The power of Congress has atrophied. We are almost like ombudsmen to the executive branch now. This needs to change. In the words of James Madison: ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' I am afraid that is what we have come to. Too many of our laws, civil and criminal, are now being written by the executive branch. Here is what the REINS Act does, and here is why it is important. If a regulation that is passed by the executive branch or suggested by the executive branch has more than $100 million of impact--that is a pretty high threshold. I would argue if it has any impact, we should be legislating it, but this is a compromise. If it has more than $100 million of impact, it has to come here if it is going to become a law. They do not get to write the laws, and so that is why we need the REINS Act. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 31, 2023. Hon. Jodey Arrington, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Arrington: Thank you for consulting with the Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023, so that the measure may proceed expeditiously to the House floor. I agree that your forgoing further action on this measure does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of your committee, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on this measure or similar legislation in the future. I would support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate conference on this legislation. I will include the exchange of these letters in the Judiciary Committee's report to accompany this legislation and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to continuing to work together on matters of shared jurisdiction during this Congress. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jim Jordan, Chairman.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We now have had a sneak preview of what the next hour of debate is going to look like. The other side is going to argue that we need to give up more power to the executive branch. I think our constituents would be appalled. They sent us here and they say we are not effective enough, yet the other side of the aisle is going to say, oh, we need to give the power to the executive branch. We have also heard here already tonight that this bill, which would restore our Constitution, they say may be unconstitutional. They are referring to a Supreme Court case that has nothing to do with this bill, INS v. Chadha, which said you can't have a legislative veto. That bill that they were ruling on ran afoul of the Constitution because it didn't require passage in both Chambers and a signature by the President. The REINS Act requires passage in both Chambers and a signature by the President, so their claim that it is unconstitutional is absurd because this is what is required to restore the Constitution. Their claim that the REINS Act is redundant because we already have the Congressional Review Act is equally as absurd. There have been over 90,000 rules passed by the executive branch since the Congressional Review Act was passed. Only 20 of those have been able to be repealed by this Chamber and the Senate. This is not a substitute for the Congressional Review Act. It is not redundant. This is what is required. It is what is missing right now in our constitutional structure from what our Founders intended. Mr. Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), who is also a member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend who serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), the sponsor of the REINS Act.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), my good friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, reasonable minds may differ about certain policies, but under the Constitution, we should all be on the same page about who should make law. Congress should make law. Think about some of the laws that have been promulgated by the administrative branch, things that should have come to Congress. I got on an airplane a few years ago, and they said that Federal law requires that you wear a mask. Do you know what I thought to myself? We never voted on that law. We should have voted on whether that should be a law or not. I would have voted ``no.'' It probably would not have passed, and if it had and our constituents decided it was too onerous, they could appeal to us, not some bureaucrat. What are some other examples? The vaccine mandates that cost people their jobs. These were not laws passed by Congress. These were from the executive branch. Then, tonight, we have just had two bipartisan votes to repeal executive branch rules, one on the pistol brace and one on stoves-- bipartisan. What does that mean? That means if they had tried to bring those as laws through Congress as the Founders had intended, they would have failed because there would have been bipartisan opposition to that. We should be making the laws here. It is very simple. When unelected, unaccountable, unrecallable bureaucrats write the laws, then the laws become more numerous and more onerous. We should pass the REINS Act and bring the constitutional authority back to Congress to pass legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported House Resolution 463, providing for the consideration of four measures: H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615, and H.R. 1640. The rule provides for H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, also known as the REINS Act, to be considered under a structured rule, and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. The rule makes 15 amendments in order. The rule provides further for H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, to be considered under a structured rule, and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. The rule makes one amendment in order. Additionally, the rule provides for H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, to be considered under a structured rule and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule makes two amendments in order. Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, to be considered under a structured rule and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule makes three amendments in order. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our constituents didn't elect us to come here and eat fancy dinners and go from one fundraiser to the next, take lavish trips, and rub elbows with important and famous people. They sent us here for one job: Pass laws or, in some cases, repeal laws. Set the rules under which they will live under; and then we are accountable every 2 years. The Founders were very wise. Some people complain, but every 2 years our constituents have a chance to replace us if the rules we have set aren't in their favor. They have no such choice with bureaucrats. Our Founders didn't set this system up for bureaucrats to make the laws. Excessive regulation stifles economic growth, hurts small businesses, and raises consumer prices. In fact, much of the inflation that we see in the sectors of food and energy is due to overregulation. It is vital that Congress act to reduce our regulatory burden now, which raises consumer prices, reduces wages, and costs jobs. I think the American people watching this debate are somewhat vexed that the other side of the aisle says we need to give up more power to the executive branch when they sent us here to do something, and they wonder why we are so feckless so often. They are probably shaking their heads. What are these other people talking about that somebody else should make the rules that we live under? The REINS Act would require congressional approval for regulations that have a major impact on our economy of more than $100 million, or lead to a raise in consumer prices, or adversely affect employment. If the REINS Act becomes law, every major regulation promulgated by the administration will come back to Congress for our approval. These regulations, they are not just regulations, these have the force of law. You can go to prison for 10 years, as we have seen with the regulation on pistol braces, just because some bureaucrat decided they wanted to pass a regulation. In fact, the jobs-crushing OSHA vaccine mandate was one of the things that we should have voted on. If you are going to do that to your constituents, vote on it. But we didn't. We let the executive branch do it. The idea behind the REINS Act isn't novel. It is enshrined in the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' Does it say and a bureaucracy? No, it doesn't. Does is it say some legislative powers herein granted? No, it says all legislative powers herein granted are given to the Congress of the United States. Congress has delegated its authority to unaccountable Federal agencies over the past decades, and our constituents are feeling that burden. Unelected bureaucrats do not have the constitutional authority to write laws, nor are they accountable to the people. They are career bureaucrats. Our Congress has this power, and ceding it to the Federal agencies undermines our representative form of government. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), my good friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments made from the other side of the aisle that I find absolutely laughable is this notion that the REINS Act might be unconstitutional, might have some constitutional infirmity because it requires Congress to pass the laws instead of the executive branch. They reference a Supreme Court decision, INS v. Chadha, that doesn't even read on this bill. The REINS Act does not violate the Presentment Clause because it requires passage in the House, passage in the Senate, and a signature of the President. It doesn't even apply to the Supreme Court decision that was referenced. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a document titled: ``Gas stove use and respiratory health among adults with asthma in NHANES III,'' the conclusion of which is: ``Among adults with asthma, there was no apparent impact of gas stove use on pulmonary function or respiratory symptoms.''

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the story of how the REINS Act originated. It is one of the most popular bills in Congress. It is the one bill that would do the most to restore the constitutional balance of government. It was an idea from Lloyd Rogers. Lloyd is a constituent of mine. He grew up in an orphanage where he met the girl who would later become his wife. They were married for 65 years. Lloyd served during the Korean war. Lloyd came home and ran for county judge executive, where he served the people of Kentucky once again. Time after time, when he was trying to do the right thing for the people in Kentucky, he was frustrated by laws, but he dug into them. They weren't laws. They were rules, and he couldn't talk to his Congressman to get these things fixed so that he could govern locally. He came up with the idea of the REINS Act, gave it to the Congressman who represented the district before me, and then that Congressman brought it here to Congress. That is the way laws are supposed to happen, not by some bureaucrat. Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to the gas stove act here. Despite media gaslighting to the contrary, the Biden administration has effectively declared war on gas stoves using varying rationales. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle has said that nobody's gas stove is going to be banned. Let me read you a statement from Jeremy Ortiz, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy: Our ``analysis is constructed so that the proposed standard would ensure that products with at least one HIR burner and continuous grates can continue to be available on the market.'' Here is the punch line: ``We did go out of our way to make sure that these two features would remain on the market in creating our analysis. Over half the market would remain if this standard is finalized as proposed.'' Wow. They went out of their way. They bent over backward to make sure they were only going to ban half of the gas stoves on the market for now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.