staggering. ms. speier: by d.o.d.'s own estimates 19,000 men and women in the military each and every year are sexual assaulted -- sexually assaulted or raped. only 13% actually report these sexual assaults and rapes and 90% of them, 90% of them are involuntarily honorably discharged. there is a message in the military, shut up, take an aspirin, go to bed, sleep it off. . these very modest elements are really very important. but if we are really going to deal with this issue, if we are truly going to say that you are no longer going to be more likely to be a victim of violence in the military by a fellow officer than by the enemy, if we are really going to be able to change that construct, then we are going to have to take the reporting of these crimes away from the chain

of command and put it in a separate office where we will have experts, both military and civilian, that will be able to prosecute these cases and actually investigate them. right now there's a huge conflict of interest. i spoke on the floor this morning about petty officer deroche who was raped by two officers in tie lapd when they were on -- in thailand when they were on port of call. she was raped twice by each of these men. she was then went to report it and was told to leave it alone. she was then put in a medical hold for 24 hours for days, and then what happened? she was eventually allowed to leave the ship and be put in another service setting. but you know what happened to those two assailants? both of whom admitted that they

had raped her. both of whom admitted they had raped her -- may i have an additional minute? ms. tsongas: pleased to yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: one of them had six months loss of -- reduction in pay. one of them got demoted. one of them did not. but neither of them, neither of them served any time for having admitted that they had raped her. they got what was called, nonjudicial punishment. what a joke that in this country we would give a unit commander the authority to be judge and jury and then not even have these individuals who commit these violent crimes have to pay anything. it doesn't go on record. there is no sexual assault data base. that's the way we run the military and that must stop. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.

the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i have no additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. tsongas: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, madam speaker. i just have to respond to the last speaker that we had. our military -- let me go back a little further. we have this language in the bill. we have worked with ms. tsongas, she's done great work with mr. turner. we have been out of the majority for four years. we now have a majority. i'm not going to say that it shouldn't have been fixed before. it should have. but we have this in the bill. but to attack the military and make them like they are the worst people in the world,

19,000 is excessive, it is something that never should have happened. this will take care of it. move us -- we just had talk of a revered football coach we found right in their organization of a very upstanding university that we all have thought great things about has all kinds of problems with sexual abuse and i refuse to have the innuendo or the charge that the military is corrupt top to bottom, which is what you just basically inferred in what you just said, and we support this. we put it in the bill. we think that it is very important to take care of this problem. ms. speier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mckeon: i would be happy to

yield. ms. speier: i did not say the military was corrupt. what i did say -- mr. mckeon: you did charge them with some very serious issues and besmirched the character of the military. ms. speier: will you yield? mr. mckeon: be happy to yield. mr. speier: what i would say to the gentleman from california is this. that the congress of the united states has for more than a quarter or almost a quarter of a century now been looking at this issue. we have not done a good job. mr. mckeon: reclaiming my time. as the new chairman of the committee, the first bill that we have brought forward we have it in the bill. we are moving to take care of it. ms. speier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mckeon: i think we have probably said enough. what i would say at this time is we do support this. the bill was overwhelmingly supported out of committee.

60-1. 322-96 in the house. we are moving strongly on this issue. we will support it through the conference. and do our best to see that it remains in the bill because it is such a very important issue. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection, the -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from -- miss son began: i did not mean to yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady asking unanimous consent to reclaim additional time? is there any objection to the unanimous consent request? mr. mckeon: reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: any objection -- mr. mckeyon: i reserve a point of order and right to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the right to object. and the gentleman now is recognized on his reservation.

mr. mckeon: i understand that i did that once myself. yield back my time inadvertently. with that i would be happy to see she has the balance of her time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. and without objection, the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i thank the chairman. it has been my honor and pleasure to work on a bipartisan fashion on this legislation that seeks to address the great challenge of military sexual trauma. i think that we have incorporated into the house version of the bill some very significant reforms that will help to protect victims. unfortunate victims of this great affront to young people serving in our military. will seek to better protect them as they seek to bring to justice the perpetrators. will better train those who are put in a place and designed and created, these are positions

created to help victims deal with this tremendous trauma. seek out appropriate legal remedies and do it in a way that does not further victimize the victim. does that mean there is not always going to be additional work to do? absolutely, always. otherwise we would all be out of a job if we didn't have to simply come back and revisit and revisit and revisit these issues. but i want to make it very clear that this has been a great bipartisan effort. i'm very thankful for the support we have received. the military has made tremendous efforts, but obviously we would not be here today discussing this if there was still not a long way to go. and i appreciate the fact that this has been recognized on both sides of the aisle. i thank you for allowing me to reclaim my time. now i yield time to congresswoman speier. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. tsongas: a moment to congresswoman speier.

the speaker pro tempore: one minute? did the gentlelady from massachusetts say one minute for the gentlelady? recognized for one minute. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you to the gentlelady from massachusetts for yielding me a minute. i would just like to say to the gentleman from california and to my colleagues on the armed services committee, i am very grateful that this language is in the resolution to instruct the conferees. my only point is that until we create an independent office to handle these cases, we continue to place the unit commanders and the base commanders in a conflict of interest. what happens when the unit commander is in fact the assailant? that means that the rape victim has to go to her rapist and seek to have help and to report that rape to her unit commander. what we need to do is create an independent authority that will

have the expertise, which a unit commander is not going to have, about sexual assault and rape, and have the investigators that have, again, the expertise, to look at these cases so that the unit commanders and base commanders are not flummoxed by the very issues surrounding this very, very serious issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts yields back the balance of her time. and all time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to instruct. all those in favor will signify by saying aye. opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from washington. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays? recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to instruct will be followed by five-minute votes on the motion to permit closed conference meetings on h.r. 1540, and the motion to instruct on h.r. 2550. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 421. the nays are 2. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule 22, i move that the managers on the part of the house on h.r. 1540 be permitted to close to the public any of the conference at such times as classified national security information may be broached providing that any sitting member of congress shall be entitled to attempt any meeting of the conference. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12 of rule 22, the yeas and nays are ordered and members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 404. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 406 and the nays are 17 with one answering present. the motion is adopted and

without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct on h.r. 2550 on which the yeas and nays were ordered and the clerk will report the bill. the speaker pro tempore: motion -- the clerk: motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. dicks of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote, a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 409 and the nays are 13. the motion is adopted. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection the chair appoints the following conferees on h.r. 2055. the clerk: messrs. rogers of connecticut, young of florida, frelinghuysen, aderholt, ms. granger, culberson, dicks, advice clossly, mrs. lowey, ms. delauro, messrs. moran, price of north carolina and bishop of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the chair appoints the following conferees on h.r. 1540.

the clerk: from the committee on armed services for consideration of the house bill in the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference. messrs. mckeon, bartlett, thornberry, akin, forbes, miller of florida, lobiondo, turner of ohio, kline, rogers of alabama, shuster, conaway, witman, hunter, rooney, schilling, griffin of arkansas, west, smith of washington, reyes, ms. loretta sanchez of california, messrs. mcen buyer, -- mcen entire -- mcintyre, andrews, courtney, loebsack, ms. tsongas and ms. pingree of maine. from the permanent select committee on intelligence for consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of that committee under clause 11 of rule 10, mr. rogers of michigan, mrs. myrick and mr. ruppersberger, from the committee on education and the work force, for consideration of sections 548 and 572 of the

house bill and section 572 and 573 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference, messrs. petri, heck and george miller of california. from the committee on energy and commerce for consideration of sections 911, 1099-a, 2852 and 3114 of the house bill and section 1089 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference. messrs. upton, walden and waxman. from the committee on financial services for consideration of section 645 of the house bill and section 1245 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference, mr. bachus, mrs. capito and mr. ackerman. from the committee on foreign affairs for consideration of sections 1013, 1014, 1055, 1056, 1086, 1092, 1202, 1204, 1205, 1211, 1214, 1216, 118, 1219,

1226, 1228 through 1230, 1237, 1301, 1303, 1532, 1533 and 3112 of the house bill and sections 159, 1012, 1031, -- 1033, 1201, 1203, 1204, 1206 through 1209, 1221 through 1225, 1228, 1230 and 1245 of title 13 and section 1609 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference, ms. ros-lehtinen, messrs. chabot -- chabot and berman. for consideration of section 10 9-h of the house bill and section 1092 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference, mr. daniel lungren of california, mrs. miller of michigan and mr. thompson of mississippi. from the committee on the judiciary for consideration of

sections 531 of subtitle d of title 5, 573, 843 and 2804 of the house bill and sections 553 and 848 of the senate amendments and modifications committed to conference, messrs. smith of texas, coble and conyers. from the committee on natural resources, for consideration of sections 313, 601 and 197 of the house bill and modifications committed to conference, messrs. hastings of washington, bishop of utah and markey. from the committee on oversight and government reform for consideration of sections 598, 662, 803, 813, 844, 847, 849, 937 through 939, 1081, 19 -- 1091, 1101 through 1111 and sections 827, 845, 1044, 1102 through 1107 and 2812 of the

senate amendments and modifications committed to the conference, messrs. ross of florida, lankford and cummings. from the committee on science, space and technology, for consideration of sections 11 sand 1098 of the house bill and sections 885, 911, 912 of division e of the senate amendments and modifications committed to conference, messrs. hall, quail and sam johnson of texas. from the committee on small business, for consideration of section 804 of the house bill and sections 885 through 887 much division e of the senate amendments and modifications committed to conference, mr. graves of missouri, mrs. ellmers and ms. velazquez. from the committee on transportation and infrastructure for consideration of sections 314, 366, 601, 1098 and 2814 of the house bill and sections 262, 313, 1045, 1088

and 3301 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference, messrs. mica, crevack and bishop of new york. for the committee of veterans affairs for considerations of section 573, 705, 731 and 1099-c of the house bill and sections 631 and 1093 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference, mr. bilirakis, mrs. berkle and ms. brown of florida. from the committee on ways and means for consideration of sections 704, 1099-a and 1225 of the house bill and section 848 of the senate amendments and modifications committed to conference, messrs. camp, herger and levin. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 10.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the house resolution 479 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 10. the chair appoints the gentleman from california, mr. denham, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 10 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5 united states code to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from

michigan, mr. conyers, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the american people today have been hit by an onslaught of unnecessary federal regulations. from the obama administration's health care mandate, government regulation has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation. by its own admission, the administration is preparing numerous regulations that each will cross the economy $1 billion or more per year. it's 2011 regulatory agenda calls for over 200 major rules which affect the economy by $100 million or more each and every year. employers, the people who create jobs and pay taxes, are rightly concerned about these costs and the cost of regulations impose on their businesses.

in a gallup poll conducted last month, nearly 1/3 of small business owners cited compliance with government regulations as their primary concern. that should motivate us to take action today. rather than restrain its efforts to expand government, the administration now seeks to accomplish through regulatory agencies what it cannot get approved by congress. the reins act is people's representatives in congress the final say over whether washington will impose major new regulations on the american economy. more than once this year the president himself has talked about the dangers that excessive regulations pose to our economy. he has called for reviews ever existing regulations. he has professed a commitment to more transparency. the president has stated that, quote, it is extremely important to minimize regulatory burdens and avoid unjustified regulatory

cost, end quote. unfortunately, the president's actions speak louder than his words. but rather than make good on its statements, the obama administration has proposed four times the number of major regulations than the previous administration over a similar time period. the white house has admitted to congress that for most new major regulations issued in 2010, the government failed to analyze both the cost and the benefits. it is time for congress to take action to reverse these harmful policies. with the reins act, we can hold the administration accountable for its unjustified regulatory assault on america's job creators. and we can guarantee that congress not un-elected agency officials will be accountable for all new major regulatory cost. the american people want job creation not more regulation.

the reins act reins in out-of-control federal regulations that burden america's businesses and job creators. i thank mr. davis of kentucky for introducing this legislation. i urge all my colleagues to support the reins act and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. ladies and gentlemen of the house, h.r. 10 is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills and since the house was in session during 2010 for 116 legislative days, under this bill, and i invite any of my colleagues to

make any different analysis, the congress would be required after 70 days after they receive a rule to act upon it. if you only have 116 legislative days a year, it would be literally impossible to handle the number of rules that we would get. namely we get 94 rules last year. 116 days, if we were handling every rule, please, use your aret matic -- arithmetic skills, ladies and gentlemen. this bill would be an unworkable and impossible for new regulations to be enacted.

but then maybe that's the whole thrust of the matter. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield six minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis, who is the sponsor of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for six minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman. two years ago i met with a constituent who was concerned about the effects of the unfunded e.p.a. mandates on his water and sewer bills. he wanted to know why congress doesn't vote on new regulations. this simple question inspired the legislation that we are considering today and it also begs a broader question. who should be accountable to the american people for major laws with which they are forced to comply? since the new deal, every congress has delegated more of its constitutional lawmaking authority to un-elected bureaucrats and administrative agencies through vaguely written laws. this is an abdication of congress' constitutional responsibility to write the laws. this practice of excessive delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch allows

members of congress to take credit for the benefits of a law that has past and blame federal agencies for the requirements federal lation regulation is authorized. congress is never required to support, oppose, or contribute to federal regulation that is are major and finalized under their watch. even more troubling, this practice has enabled the executive branch to overstep the intent of congress and legislate the regulation based on broad authorities previously given the agency. in recent years we have seen examples of the administrative agencies regardless of party going beyond their original grants of power to implement policies not approved by the people's congress. in several cases such as net neutrality rules and regulation of carbon emissions, agencies are pursuing regulatory action after congress has expolice itly rejected -- explicitly rejected the concept. administrative officials publicly proclaimed the strategy after the results of the 2010 elections going around congress by forcing their agenda through regulation. in february of last year "the new york times" quoted white

house communications director dan five saying in 2010 executive action also also play a key role in advancing the administration's agenda. true to their word the administration continues using regulation as an end around to congress. the lack of congressional accountability for the regulatory process has allowed the regulatory state to grow almost unchecked for generations. federal administrative agencies issued 3,271 new rules in 2010 or roughly nine regulations per day. these regulations have a profound impact on our economy. the small business administration estimated that regulations cost the american economy $1.75 trillion in 2008, and that's nearly twice the amount of individual income taxes paid in this country that year. small businesses spend an estimated $10,500 per employee to comply with federal rules, a considerable burden on the private sector's ability to create jobs at a time of continued economic struggles. today we can choose to continue on this path or we can vote to restore our constitutional duty

to make law and be held accountable for the details. the reins act effectively constrains the authority by limiting the size and scope of rule making position. once major rules are drafted and finalized, the reins act would require congress to hold an up or down vote on any major regulation. major regulation are those with an annual economic impact of more than $100 million as determined by the office of information and regulatory affairs. the president would also have to sign the resolution before it could be enforced on the american people. job creators or state and local governments. every major regulation would be voted on within 70 legislative days. the reins act was specifically written not to unnecessarily hold up the regulatory process. rather the bill prevents reins resolutions from being filibustered in the senate. the point of the reins act is simply accountability. each congressman must take a stand and be accountable for regulations that cost our citizenry $100 million or more annually. no longer would congress be able to avoid accountability by writing vague laws requiring the

benefits up front and leaving the unpopular or costly elements to the bureaucrats who write those elements to the law at some later date. whether or not the congress approves the regulation, there will be -- they will be clearly an accountable vote on the subject that the american people can see and judge for themselves. this ensured the greatest regulatory burden on our economy are necessary to promote the public welfare rather than simply sprouting from the minds of un-elected bureaucrats. the bill's name is a metaphor for the reins on a horse is figure. the purpose of reins is not to keep a horse at a stand still. it is to ensure the horse knows what is expected of him. likewise the reins act would not stop the regulatory process, it would improve the regulatory process by ensuring that new major rules match the intent of congress and the will of the american people. the reins act would foster greater up-front cooperation between agencies and future congresses resulting in better written legislation and regulation. with greater accountability, transparency, regulatory

agencies will have no choice but to write regulation that is reflect the need for sensible standards and take into account the impact regulations have on american businesses and families. similarly, agencies would no longer be able to bypass congress with regulation that is don't match congressional intent or go too far. not all regulations are bad. many provide needed public safeguards, help to keep the american people safe, and maintain a level playing field for businesses to compete. so good regulations would be approved by future congresses and those that could not withstand the public scrutiny of a vote in congress would not. a commonsense regulatory system with appropriate checks and balances on the most economically significant rules will help to revive our stagnant economy and give more businesses the ability to hire thanks to a bert sense ever stability and what to expect from washington going forward. the question we are asked today is in effect the same i was asked by my constituent in august of 2009. who should be accountable for the rules and regulations that have the greatest economic impact on our economy? my answer is the congress. in an era of high unemployment, congress can no longer avoid its

responsibility to the american people for the regulatory burden. passing the reins act today would be a major step forward in returning to a constitutional, responsible legislative an regulatory framework. i want to thank judiciary chairman lamar smith for his countless efforts on behalf of the reins act and his leadership, as well as the more than 200 co-sponsors of this bill in the house. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds before yielding to mr. moran. this is the -- the reins act is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills in the congress. the only problem i say to the distinguished author, the gentleman from kentucky, is that it won't work. there are only 116 legislative days. i turn now to the gentleman

that's been -- spent a lot of time on the floor monitoring this subject matter. i recognize jim moran of virginia for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: i thank the very distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee. this approach is neither effective nor responsible. to paraphrase h.r. messagin, eliminating federal agency rule making as we know it is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. mr. speaker, despite what the house majority would like you to believe, our federal regulatory process is a model the world over. delegation from other countries frequently visit our government agencies to learn how their governments can best ensure public involvement while maximizing government effectiveness and efficiency. why? because our regulatory system is the most open and the most fair system in the world. current law already guarantees

that proposed regulations get widely published and receive extensive public participation. the proof of that is the proposed regulations receive hundreds, thousands, even millions of public comments. the u.s. forest service, for example, received over $1.6 million comments on its roadless rule and held over 600 public meetings. and public involvement doesn't stop there. federal agencies have required -- are required by law to consider and respond to each comment received, commenters frequently request and receive comment period extensions. when agencies go over general problems with their proposed regulations they change them to address the concerns. congress passed the congressional review act, this law already provides a 60-day waiting period before a final rule becomes effective. during that delay congress can disapprove an agency rule by joint resolution. the fact is that federal agencies already have the right attitude about regulation.

i think federal reserve chairman ben bernappingy summed it up best, we seek to implement the will of congress in a manner that provides the greatest benefit at the lowest cost to society as a whole. this bill takes america in the wrong direction. one full of risk and cost that will put the public's health and safety at great risk. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this wrong legislation. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague from texas, mr. hensarling, who is also the chairman of the house republican conference. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: a few weeks ago our nation celebrated thanksgiving. unfortunately, in the obama economy millions could not give thanks for having a job. in the obama economy,

unemployment remains meyered at , near or above 9%. in the obama economy one in seven are on food stamps. in the obama economy we have seen the fewest small business startups in 17 years. and that's why, mr. chairman, jobs are job number one for house republicans. that's why our jobs bills have been passed but unfortunately 25 of them are stacking up like cord wood in the united states senate. the most important pro-jobs bill is on the floor today, the rarkte. mr. speaker, whether i am -- the reins act. mr. speaker, whether i am talking to dallas business owners they tell me the same

thing, the number one impediment today is the federal regulatory burden. i hear from them each and every day. i hard from the grash family in texas. quote, i have to bring in an digsal -- an additional $,000 a month to break even. -- $1,000 a month to break even. i will not invest in any further expansion and therefore not hiring number smarter policies are being conveyed from washington. i hear from the ross family, also in the fifth district, who talks about the regulatory burden from the president's health care plan. quote, my company has laid off all staff and i myself will file for unemployment on monday. that's about 23 people added to the unemployment rolls next week. again, due to federal regulation. i heard from the nixon family in the fifth district of texas. federal regulation, again, we are giving up this part of our

business. one person's losing their job. quote, this is a small example of how excessive government regulations is stifling business. it's the number one impediment and all we're asking with the reins act, if it's going to cost $100 million or more, let's have congressional approval. it's common sense. it forces accountability. it simply waives the benefits of a regulation to be balanced with the cost to our own jobs. jobs ought to be number one in this house and the number one jobs bill we can pass is the reins act. i ask for once that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join me and let's put america back to work. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize a ranking subcommittee chairman in the

judiciary, steve cohen of tennessee, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: tennessee. mr. cohen: i appreciate the time but i don't appreciate the relocation. i am from tennessee, the volunteer state, and from memphis, in particular, but it is appropriate that we be a little confused with states because listening to the debate on the floor it's obviously we are a little confused by history and presidents too. president obama has been bush whacked here on the floor of the house. it's not the obama economy. it's the bush economy that president obama saved from going in the second great depression that this country would have suffered in 100 years. saved it from depression with great actions at a time of bipartisan action that helped save this action from the great depression that it otherwise was looking at. i think we need to commend president bush and not bush whack him when we get a chance.

this bill that's been brought up, h.r. 10, the reins act, would rein in government, it would rein in regulations that are promulgated with regulations to come up with rules and regulations to implement the laws we pass. now, i'm proud to be a member of the united states congress, and i know we have good men and women in this house and most of the people are very good men and women, but right now congress has a 9% approval rating. and this bill would tell the american public that they should take the expertise of the people that are in the agencies and the administration and turn it over to 435 members, the 535 members, including senate, of congress the least approved government body that exists. now, on the one hand they decry congress. their candidate, mr. perry, wants us to work halftime.

but this bill would make us the sbr regulatory commission. we would -- superregulatory commission. we would have to approve every regulation by a positive vote in the house and a positive vote in the senate and have to do it and have the president sign it within 70 days of promle gation and we -- prommelgation and we only have every other thursday to do it. so you take the least respected body of government in the entire united states of america, maybe the entire world, and give it a very limited amount of time to make all the rules and regulations for the biggest government in the world. talk about clean air, you wouldn't have it. you would have more rain. the reins act. you should call it the acid rain act. it is raining outside. it's raining for verifications and fabrications and can --

kenards among us. bills tend to emass could you late -- emass clate government taking the rights away from people, clean air, clean water, products, occupational health and safety, all which is second nature to the american public. i ask us to defeat this time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 10 minutes -- two minutes. mr. poe: thank you. the mere phrase, the regulators, brings fear and trendation down in the hearts and souls of small business owners throughout the fruited plain. mr. chairman, the code of federal regulations is 150,000

pages long. that's a lot of pages. that's a lot of regulation. according to the small business administration, the annual cost of our federal regulations in this country is almost $2 trillion in 2008. mr. chairman, do we really need all of those expensive regulations? good thing the federal regulators weren't around when the 10 commandents were written. no telling what kind of regulations they would have added to those simple 10 phrases. it's common sense congress should have a say on a regulation that would have a drastic, expensive effect on our economy. now, why do my friends on the other side who are such big fans of regulations don't want the regulators to be regulating? i don't understand that. congress is the branch of government. remember, we are elected, the regulators are not, we're the branch of government that is closely connected to the people.

and if congress approves unnecessary and burdensome regulation we have to be accountable to our voters in our districts for that. who do the regulators answer to? no one. they only answer to their supervisors who are also regulators and when the regulators go to work every day like most people go to work, their work assignments are a little different. in my opinion they sit around a big old table drinking their lattes. they have out their ipads and computers and say, who shall we regulate today? and they honor regulate and send it out to the masses and make us deal with the cost of that. all the reins act does is ask congress to be involved in these overburdensome regulations. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from florida, a valuable member of the

judiciary committee, two minutes. from georgia, excuse me. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: well, i like florida but i hail from georgia, and sometimes i wish i was in florida. and i tell you, i rise in opposition to h.r. 10, the so-called reins act. it's a demonstration of the rein of terror that the tea party, grover norquist republican party has exacted on americans insofar as their health and safety is concerned, in terms of their ability as a small business to compete with wall street and big business. you see, this is a christmas gift. it's a gift to those who installed this tea party rein in congress, and this tea party

rein, the republicans in congress are doing everything that they're supposed to do. this is the anti-regulatory bill that as the chairman said is the mother of all anti-regulatory bills. in fact, the 25, 26 bills that have been misnamed jobs bills that the republicans have passed, nothing more than anti-regulatory legislation sprinkled with a little anti-abortion legislation in there. not one job to be created, just simply to the wishes of those who lines their pockets with gold in order for you to get elected. this anti-legislation --

anti-regulatory legislation is turning the clock back on progress in america. we want to turn it over all to big business. this is what the wall street occupation is all about. this is what the pea -- mr. conyers: 30 more seconds seconds. mr. johnson: this bill will make it impossible to implement new regulations that place some restraints on the excesses of the business community, and i ask that it be defeated, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. quale, who is a member of the judiciary committee -- mr.

quayle, who is a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. quayle: i rise in support of h.r. 10 because this ensures that the government is more accountable to the american people. now, poll after poll of small business owners and medium-sized business owners, they will show you and tell you that major regulations are holding back their expansion and the ability for them to hire more workers. but you don't have to rely on polls. you can just go down and talk to the local businesses in your stricts. i had a job forum the -- businesses in your districts. i had a job forum the other week. the thing we heard is the overburdensome regulatory environment is holding back their expansion. now, several months ago in the beginning of the 112th congress i had some hope because president obama actually had his agencies provide an executive order that they required agencies to review the regulations to see if we can have a less burdensome

regulatory environment. unfortunately what happened, those were just words not followed up by actual action because since then the administration has continued to introduce new regulations at a rapid rate. this year alone over 73,000 pages of new regulations have been added to the federal register at a cost of $67.4 billion. now, mr. speaker, right here i have right here the amount of paper that's been added to the federal register in one week. this is last week's regulations. that's pretty heavy. actually eight pounds, 13 ounces, federal regulations if you stretched 2,695 feet. right now there are more than 4,000 new regulations in the pipeline. of those 224 are major regulations that have an economic impact exceeding $100 million. so at a minimum, the annual economic impact of these

regulations will be $22 billion. mr. speaker, we need to change this. some of these agencies act outside the statutory authority grapted by congress. we must -- granted by congress. we must stop this. the reins act is the way to do this and i ask my colleagues to support this measure. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would yield now to a senior member of the house judiciary committee, the honorable sheila jackson lee of texas, three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. i thank the chairman as well. i think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what is being asked of this body. i believe it is a nullification of the constitution which i'd like to carry and the very distidget definition of the three -- distinct definition of the three branches of government

and their responsibilities. frankly our friends are trying to equate this congress and it's do-nothing record to the work of the executive and now to create a do-nothing pathway for the rule making process. which as i have indicated on many of the bills that have already passed, there is a federal court process for anyone that wants to challenge the process of rule making or whether or not due process has been denied. so i'd actually say that what we have here is a complete shutdown of the federal government. for it is asking this congress to pass a joint resolution of approval for any major rule to be passed. now, mr. chairman, let me suggest to you what would happen. warnings on cigarette packages would no longer exist. medicare payments for those

lying in psychiatric hospitals would not be able to be paid. and the admission standards for boiler -- emission standards for boiler pollutants, hazardous pollutants out of industrial, commercial, and institutional emissions would go flat. and we would have a nation that small businesses, i believe, would argue would also be a distraction from the work that they do. it is interesting that my friends would want to use the backs of small businesses to pretend that they are protecting them. first of all, if they look at their facts they'll note the obama administration has passed less rules than the bush administration. as i indicated they will also note that the 111th congress passed more constructive bills to help small businesses than this congress could ever do, and the a fact they would note it has been recorded that this congress is the largest do-nothing congress that has ever existed. it would be helpful if we could

pass the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans. allow them to infuse dollars, $1,000 or $1,500 into the small businesses of america. i will tell you that my small businesses will celebrate that. in visiting a medical clinic owned by a doctor that had thousands of feet he wanted to rehab and expand, he said the payroll tax that was part of the jobs bill the president wanted to pass-through this do-nothing house of representatives would have helped him greatly. then we have millions of americans, six million, who are trying to get unemployment insurance. here we are down to the last wire telling those in this blessed holiday season, whatever your faith, that you have to wait at the door. in fact there may not be any room at the inn for six billion who don't have unemployment insurance. i don't want a government to shut down. i want a government that works. i thank the distinguished gentleman. i don't want to shut down the government. i want a government that works.

rule making is not the demon here. and the process of rule making, if you read it, provides the input and assessment of those who are concerned. what this does is involve the president, the congress, in a scheme that is so dilatory that we will never do any work in this congress. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: defeat this legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: before yielding to the gentleman from nevada, i yield myself 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i want to set the record straight. the bill is not anti-regulatory but pro-accountability. it will enable both republican and democratic majorities in congress to make the final calls on major regulation that is come from administrations of either party. majorities of either party can be expected to approve regulations whenever appropriate. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: congress will always be held accountable. mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from

nevada, mr. amodei, a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. amodei: thank you, mr. chairman. and also to my distinguished chairman from texas. 85% of the land in nevada is controlled by the federal government. perhaps no other state in the nation lives with a more daily, direct impact of the presence of the federal government and its regulatory regime than the silver state. community driven development proposals that would generate economic growth often take years longer than they should because of layer upon layer of regulatory, mandatory gymnastics. home builders, agribusiness, manufacturers, retailers, the resort and hospitality industries, small business in general all lament the gymnastics that they have to go through to get a permit or even

to comply with existing regulations. all of that effort in a state which i'm sorry to have to sit up here and remind you, 85% of the land controlled by the federal government, highest unemployment rate in the nation, highest foreclosure rate in the nation. we are trying to generate economic development. and it is taking years to get a permit because of regulatory regimes. there is no one that will indicate that that is not the case. so when we talk about this issue before us today, and i congratulate my colleague from kentucky, when we talk about the job of congress in an oversight sense, i think it is entirely appropriate that you revisit the regulation that is are promulgated not out of thin air but as a result of the statutes that pass these two houses and to revisit that point and make sure those regulations bear resemblance to both sides of the aisle's legislative intent where they are supported is something

we ought to guard zealously because the last time i checked the federal elected officials in the executive branch number two. and it doesn't matter what side of the aisle they come from our what party they come from, i think it's appropriate for the 535 who send those measures to those folks check back to make sure that's being done appropriately. i thank you for your consideration yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize a senior member of the energy and commerce committee, rob andrews of new jersey, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, 25 days from now if the congress doesn't act, every middle class family in this country is going to have $1,000 tax increase. 25 days from now if the congress doesn't ask, doctors who take

care of our medicare patients are going to have a 23% cut in the fee they get to see medicare patients. during those 25 days, several million americans who are out there looking for a job every day are going to receive their last unemployment benefits check. these are the shishe us -- issues confronting america today. and what are we doing? we are debating a bill that says that some regulation, the government might do someday in the future, should have a procedure where congress can reject it. there already is such a procedure. and for all these terrible regulations we keep hearing about that have been introduced this year, do you know how many times the majority has brought to the floor a resolution to reject one of those regulations? once.

so this is such a grave threat to the country's economy that the majority that controls the floor has chosen on one occasion to bring a regulation to the floor. what we ought to be doing is canceling out this $1,000-a-year tax increase on the middle class. what we ought to be doing is making sure our seniors can see the doctor come january 1. what we ought to be doing is making sure that americans who are diligently looking for work don't run out of unemployment benefits. but that's not what we are doing. this is not only the wrong bill, it's the wrong time. let's put on the floor a bill that puts americans back to work and focuses on the real priorities of the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, a senior member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes.

mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: with so many american families struggling, with so many americans struggling to find work, and businesses struggling to hire unemployed americans, it's time to rein in the federal government. it's time to rein in the average of red tape -- avalanche of red tape cascading outs of washington, d.c., and stifling our recovery. it's time to enact the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act of 2011. the reins act. i want to rise to commend the gentleman from kentucky, congressman geoff davis, for his visionary and tireless efforts in moving the reins act to the floor today. and for his leadership in this congress. you know, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, they represent 99.7% of employer firms and have generated 65% of net new jobs over the past 17

years. yet today as most american small businesses know, our job creators are saddled with too many regulations and too many regulatory authorities. according to the small business administration, the average small business faces a cost of $10,585 in federal regulation per employee each and every year. the reins act will address that. it will protect jobs and promote small business growth by ensuring that the legislative branch has the final say on major regulations before they take effect. this legislation reforms the rule making process by requiring that congress approve any regulation that would have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. for too long congress has delegated its legislative authority to un-elected bureaucrats and agency officials to determine the rule making process. it's time to bring that authority back into the congress where the framers of the constitution intended it to be,

especially with regard to major rule making. the american people are hurting. the american economy is struggling. it's time to rein in big government and release the inherent power of the american economy. again. i urge my colleagues to join with me in a bipartisan fashion. i hope and trust in support of this important legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i am pleased to recognize from the financial services committee, the honorable jim himes of connecticut, and yield to him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. ranking member. i rise this afternoon as i frequently do in this chamber a little incredulous as what it is i am hearing. i am hearing stories about east texas. i'm hearing about lattes and laptops. i'm hearing that the number one reason american businesses are not hiring is because of regulations.

it's baloney. there's not a fact in there. here's some facts. i wish i had more time to get into these facts. the bureau of labor statistics, which studies this stuff, asked businesses that have been laying people off, why? regulations was a negligible answer. i would love to talk about bruce bartlett, financial advisor to president reagan, republican, who said that the notion that regulation is why this economy is on its back was just plain made up. if i had more time i'd like to talk about our former colleague, sherwood bowlard of nork, the house is moving forward with bills that would cripple the system, but show how the party going to the right most wing is willing to veer from what has long been the mainstream. i have deep problems with this crazy idea that we should have congress sign off on every regulation. but my biggest problem, mr. chairman, is we are standing here today talking about this. i hear endlessly about the

uncertainty associated with these regulations. mr. chairman, i was shocked to look at my schedule tomorrow to see that the republican majority is sending me home. and i'm going to talk to people in connecticut tomorrow who are uncertain if after next month they are going to have unemployment insurance available to them because they don't have a job and they don't have money and they may not have food on their table. small businesses and an awful lot of americans with jobs in my district are uncertain about whether they will see an extension of the payroll tax that we passed in bipartisan fashion. except we are here talking about this. a fraudulent idea followed by a terrible legislative proposal. instead of dealing with the imminent expiration of unemployment insurance and payroll tax. let's talk about those things. let's remove the uncertainty for the people that we represent. we represent people. people have a lot of uncertainty about whether they'll have unemployment insurance or the

payroll tax cut. let's deal with that. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson, who is a member of the ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. paulson:i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to rise as a compow sponsor and strong supporter of the reins act. this is legislation that will bring nord reform -- forward reform, accountability, and transparency to the federal rule making process. it's time for congress to act more like a board of directors where we will have to oversee proposed rules and regulations, especially those that have a significant economic impact. . this will allow regulations to go forward and also force congress to analyze, to pay attention and then finally to act. so no longer are we going to see agencies and unelected bureaucrats being able to promulgate these rules and regulations without having an appropriate check and a balance. mr. speaker, there are

thousands and thousands and thousands of these rules and regulations in the pipeline. and over 200, 224, specifically, to have that major economic impact threshold that would be affected by the reins act. that's a cost of over $22 billion at a minimum to the economy. if we want to help small businesses grow, if we want to grow jobs, if we want to help our economy get going and jump-start it, we need to remove that cloud of uncertainty that's hanging over the heads of small and medium-sized businesses in that regulatory environment. i want to thank my colleague from kentucky for his leadership in leading this reform. i ask for its passage. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize from colorado the distinguished gent thelady who serves on the energy and commerce committee, ms. degette, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from colorado is recognized for two minutes. ms. degette: thank you very much, mr. chairman. do we really want to bind

congress to more votes so we can play monday morning quarterback every time they want to finalize a rule? don't we have enough gridlock around here? look around. the reins act would grind our government to a halt and stymie the implementation of regulations to protect consumers and protect public health and well-being. now, look, this bill would add a feedback rule to require congress to regulate rules that it has already -- in 2010 alone federal agencies finalized important rules relating to energy efficiency, community disaster loans, weatherization assistance for low-income people, truth in lending and better pay for teachers. all of those rules would be considered major rules under

the reins act and all of those rules would have required congressional approval. good luck there with this congress. who would oppose final approval of these rules that protect everyday americans? well, based on the track record of the 112th congress, some special interest group would find a way. in fact, the reins act would allow them a back door entrance to have their way and weakens laws that protect american people. now, mr. chairman, we all know that standing here today this bill won't become law and the majority knows too. why? because it's a bad idea. in these last depace of the year, what we -- days of the year, what we should be doing is finding a way to help the millions of unemployed americans who are looking for a job by extending their unemployment insurance. we should be helping middle-class americans by helping extend the payroll tax cuts so they can pay for the food and everything else they're putting on their table. that's what the focus of this

congress should be, not passing ill-conceived legislation that will only slow down the process even more. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gibson: i thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of the reins act. this bill is about representative democracy, transparency and accountability. the concept is simple. any new proposed regulatory rule written by the federal bureaucracy that has an estimated economic impact greater than $100 million must first come here before the congress for an up or down vote before implementation. to get our economy moving, to create jobs, to strengthen the jobs we have now and to raise the standard of living of all, we need to address the impediments to growth, taxes, regulations, health care costs and energy costs. the simple truth, federal regulations have increased the cost of doing business and contributed to job loss and

stifled new job creation. even the president has acknowledged this when he's appeared in this chamber to speak to the american people. according to the small business administration, federal regulations cost other economy $1.75 trillion a year. this negative impact is something small business owners, including farmers, have told me time and again as i traveled across the 137 towns in my district, something must be done. it really comes down to judgment. we want to get these key decisions right. it's about balancing competing priorities. we want to hear the advice of our subject matter experts in the bureaucracy, but the decision should fall to the people's representatives who can be held accountable for them, not unelected faceless bureaucrats. it's far past time for some transparency and accountability. it's far past time for the reins act. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues in voting for it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the

gentleman from virginia, a member of the government oversight committee, mr. gerry connolly, for 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my good friend from michigan. mr. chairman, for the 173rd time this year our friends on the other side have brought another anti-environmental, anti-public health bill to the floor. for good reason this house majority has been identified as the most anti-environmental congress in history. in the tragic recantation of republicans heretofore historic commitment to conservation and public safety. the reins act, like the regulatory accountability act, passed last week, has a poetic finality as it will block any and all progressive regulations, largely the legacy of republican teddy roosevelt. under teddy roosevelt's administration in response to

appalling food processing conditions described in upton sinclaire's "the jungle" congress passed the first comprehensive food safety regulation. 100 years later the reins act on the floor today would block even the most commonsense regulations. new standards to protect americans from deadly contamination of chinese and mexican imported foods. the reins act is a wordy piece of legislation for those among us who actually believes that chinese factory farms should ship contaminated, uninspected food to americans' dinner tables. roosevelt protect the grand canyon and thank god they did. when congress at that time refused to designate it as a national park. the reins act would prevent federal land management agencies from issuing regulations to protect america's greatest places from degradation from mining and

offload vehicles. the reins act would also block regulations subsequent to the roosevelt administration including such landmarks bill as the clean air act, the clean water act, the occupational safety and health act, along with the regulatory accountability act which the house approved last week, the reins act is the most comprehensive, radical assault on american safety and public health in the last century. if reins passes it will replace the rule of law with the rule of the jungle. and our friends on the other side know full well that in commonsense language they have massed the inability of the federal government to protect public health and safety in this country and that would be a tragedy. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. connolly: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for

one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank the chairman. over the past year i met with hundreds of businesses throughout the eighth district of pennsylvania, and from each of them i heard a common theme -- uncertainty from consent new government regulations is impeding their ability and willingness to invest in our economy. expand their businesses and to create new jobs. in fact last night during a town hall, one of my constituents lamented at the fact that new and burdensome regulations have driven small businesses and with them jobs from his bristol township in bucks county. this should come to no surprise to any of us. even president obama admitted on january 18 that his administration's rules have placed unnecessary strain on businesses and stifled innovation and stifled job growth. today, small businesses spend more than $10,000 per employee to comply with federal regulation. compliance leads to higher consumer costs, lower wages and reduced hiring. at the same time the number of new rules and regulations

continues to grow with each passing year. just as our tax code is in need of reform, so is our ballooning regulatory system. the reins act will provide the american people with both congressional oversight and accountability from regulations stemming from legislation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the former chairman of the education and labor committee, the honorable george miller of california, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. the legislation before us today would really destroy the ability of the congress to create new regulations, to create laws to protect the health and safety of the american citizens. it would also provide a great second bite at the apple for every special interest in this country that doesn't like the regulations to protect clean water and safe drinking water and the health and safety of

our workers and our children at play. if you're wondering what it would look like when we wipe out the health and safety protections for americans, you need to look no further than the upper big branch mine in west virginia where an explosion ripped through the mine and killed 29 miners in april of this year. that mine was operated as if there were no safety regulations. they treated their workers as if there were no mine safety rules at all because they overruled all of those regulations through criminal activity, through illegal activity and those miners were forced to work with essentially none of the value of health and safety regulations designed to protect their lives. and what happened in that mine without those regulations, without the benefit of those safety protections? an explosion ripped through that mine traveling 2,000 feet per second, and it consumed the lives of 29 miners, 29 workers died and their families will never be the same.

that's what happens when you take away the most basic worker protections intended to make our economy function and to keep our workers safe. and that's what this bill on the floor today would do. now, it's even more interesting that the man who broke the laws , created that system of no regulations for the miners in the upper big branch mine, for his own personal benefit and the benefit of that of the corporation, at the expense of his workers, may be getting back into the mining business. don blankenship got an $86 million golden parachute after 29 mine workers died in west virginia and now he wants to open a new mine. people who live in coal mining states like kentucky should be aware that a serial violator of basic mine safety law is coming to your state soon seeking to operate a mine. mine companies under his leadership have engaged in dangerous and deadly practices that would pose a threat to mine workers in your state. in the two years preceding the explosion of the massey company

mine, they were cited over 10,000 times a year for violations. under this provision, the coal miners come into congress. they get the regulations that cease to exist and they go on their way and there won't be 10,000 citations for the violation of occupational safe and health of those miners. and those won't die like those in the upper big branch mine. i say to my colleagues in the house, you must defeat this incredibly offensive bill to every american, and you must do so in the name of these 29 mine workers that was killed in the upper big branch mine in west virginia. they died because of a company that was gaming the system. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan.

the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this bill and i thank the gentleman from texas, chairman smith, for yielding me this time, and i commend both him and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis, for bringing this bill to the floor to us at this time. thomas donahue, president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, in the speech to the jobs summit said, taken collectively the regulatory activity now under way is overwhelmingly beyond anything we have ever seen, that we risk moving this country away from a government of the people to a government of regulators. i want to straighten out one thing, mr. speaker. this bill does not do away with any of the thousands and thousands of laws and rules and regulations that are already on the books. it applies only to new regulations which will cost businesses and the consumer over $100 million each. i think the american people would be very surprised if they thought the congress did not already act on legislation and

laws that would cost our economy that much. we've heard estimates today that -- by the s.b.a. that rules and regulations cost small businesses almost $2 trillion a year and anywhere from $8,000 to $10,000 per employee. we have so many thousands and thousands of laws and rules and regulations on the books today, mr. speaker, that they haven't designed a computer that can keep up with them, much less a human being. people are out there every day violating laws that they didn't know were in existence. the thousands and thousands of rules and regulations we have today make it more difficult to run and maintain a business than at anytime in this country's history, and they are the cause of why so many small businesses and medium-sized businesses are going under or being forced to merge and why the big keep getting bigger in almost every industry. the reins act is a very modest attempt to end washington's almost unchecked regulatory power.

it would apply home to regulations that would cost over $100 million annually so there's nothing radical about this bill. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill, this very moderate and reasonable bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm honored at this time to recognize the former speaker of the house, the leader, the honorable nancy pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose this bill, so-called reins act, and to urge my colleagues to act now on behalf of jobs, for america's workers, jobs are the lifeblood of our economic and those of the middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. mr. chairman, for the more than 330 days the republican majority

has failed to put forward a clear jobs agenda. choosing instead to propose initiatives that undermine job creation and only benefit the special interests. today as we approach the end of this year republicans have again refused to vote to expand the payroll tax cut for the middle class and unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. they risk the economic security really of all of us, certainly the 99%, but we're all in this together as our president has said. democrats have been clear. we must not go home for the holidays without extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance benefits. we shouldn't be leaving hardworking americans high and dry over this holiday season

without doing their work. this challenge poses a question, why are we here? republicans have chosen to be here for massive tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year. not having $1 million, making over $1 million a year. 300,000 americans. democrats are here for the 160 million americans facing tax cut uncertainty because of republican inaction. the democrats are here for everybody. for all americans. because we all benefit from a strong middle class, with demand injected into our economy to create jobs. indeed, if we fail to act now on the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, consider the consequences of that reduced demand to our economy.

at least 600,000 jobs will be lost. don't take it from me, respected independent economists have stated that. over six million out of work d americans woosh out-of-work americans would lose assistance in the beginning of next year. now, consider if we do act and act we must, putting more than $1,500 in the pockets of the typical middle class family. and every dollar invested in unemployment insurance yields a return of more than $1.50 in economic growth. what's important about that is what it does to inject demand into the economy. money in the pockets of hardworking americans, that's what we want this congress to pass. instead of being so completely weded to the idea -- wedded to the idea that if we give tax cuts to the top 1% there will be a trickledown effect, it hasn't

happened. as we approach the end of this year, congress has a responsibility to address america's top priority, jobs -- job creation and economic growth. it's time for us to put the interests of working people ahead of the special interests. we must act now to reignite the american dream and build ladders of success for anyone willing to work hard and play by the rules, to remove obstacles of participation for those who wish to do that. we must spur our economy, put people to work and strengthen our middle class. now, we should not go home for the holidays without passing the middle income tax -- the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and s.g.r., there are other issues that need to be addressed that effect america's great middle class. mr. chairman, christmas is coming, the moose is getting fat. please to put a dollar in

workers -- in a worker's hand. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this reins act and to get to work to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the american people, only then will we increase demand in our economy, create jobs, promote economic growth and put money into the pockets of 160 million americans. think of the difference that will make instead of putting forth legislation that has no impact on our economic growth, if not in furtherance of job creation, if not in furtherance of strengthening the middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. we can't go home without the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits for all americans who need them, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. with that, mr. chairman, i yield

back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. today i rise in strong support of h.r. 10, the reins act, because america's job creators are buried in red tape and need certainty from the federal government in order to create jobs. this bill would provide that. you know when i travel up and down eastern and southeastern ohio, i hear a recurring theme from the businesses that i meet with. government overregulation is strangling their ability to hire new employees, expand their businesses, innovate and compete. today it costs a business over $10,000 per employee just to comply with current federal regulations. this administration, that claims it believes in reducing the burden on small business, is in the process of adding another $67 billion worth of new regulations this year alone. this administration is burying

small businesses and enough is enough. the reins act will simply return control of the regulatory process to the american people who are fed up with unelected bureaucrats stopping job creation and delaying true economic recovery. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, for our final speaker, representative lynn woolsey of california, who is finishing out a brilliant career, i yield the remainder of our time. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to our great ranking member for allowing me this time. it is ironic, we're here today debating a bill supported by those in the congress who won't cut taxes for the middle class

but will budge when it comes to making permanent the tax cuts for the very wealthy. why are we not here today talking about extending the payroll tax cuts -- excuse me, why are we not here talking about extending employment benefits? why are we not working on a jobs bill? that's what we should be doing. this congress cannot, and i echo the words of our leader, this congress cannot leave for the holidays without ensuring jobless americans have the security of unemployment benefits that will make their christmas, their holiday, the rest of their year livable. i know firsthand what it's like to fall on hard times and need a

hand up. years ago, when i was a single mother, raising three young children, my children were 1, 3 and 5 years old, i was lucky enough to have a job so i didn't need unemployment benefits, but i did need aid for families with dependent children just to make ends meet. my family needed the compassion of the government and my fellow citizens just to survive. without that safety net, i don't know what we would have done. we cannot abandon people who have been victimized by this sluggish economy. these are proud people who aren't just willing to work, they're desperate to work. i've heard -- well, there are

roughly five unemployed americans for every available job. these folks need a life preserver. extending unemployment benefits is not just a moral imperative, it will pump life back into the economy, it will give people money for their pockets, that they can spend in their local communities and in the shops and grocery stores and other businesses that they will inhabit and support if they have some money in their pockets. and i can't believe that there are some on the other side of the aisle who have been resisting this extension. sticking their finger in the eye of jobless americans while protecting lavish tax cuts for millionaires and for billionaires. that flies in the face of common sense and does violence to the very values of who we are as

american people. one republican member even said just recently that, and i quote him, he said, congress ought to concentrate on paying people to work, not paying people not to work, except his party hasn't lifted a single finger to do a single thing about creating jobs in this country. you can't pay them to work when there is no work. so i ask you, having experienced what it means to have little kids that depend on you during hard times, i ask you, do not let these families down. extend unemployment benefits, pass a big, bold jobs bill, put americans back to work. and stop wasting time on the reins bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlach, who is also a member of the ways and means committee.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. gerlach: i thank the chairman and i also want to thank congressman davis of kentucky for his great leadership on this important legislation. while our small business owners are focused on meeting payroll and their employees are working hard making products, and delivering for customers, unelected bureaucrats in washington are putting in overtime coming up with new rules and regulations. in 2010 alone the federal government issued 3,200 new regulations and rules, that's roughly nine rules per day. complying with all these regulations costs small business owners, as was mentioned, an estimated $10,500 per employee each year. at a time when we're trying to create jobs, we need to have a better accountability and transparency in congress for the regulatory burdens of the federal government places on businesses. as we try to rejuvenate our economy, the reins act is a commonsense measure that would do just that, giving workers and small business owners and others a voice in the process of approving regulations that will ultimately affect their jobs, their families and their

communities. this legislation would make sure that job creators don't have to worry about unelected bureaucrats imposing regulations on them without the approval of their elected representatives. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, we are prepared to close. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan has yielded back already. the gentleman from texas is recognized. smith schmidt mr. chairman, i'll yield the about a -- mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the chairman. the reins act provides powerful, commonsense regulatory reform. it reins in the costly overreach of federal agencies that stifles job creation and slows economic growth. if we want to have jobs, we have to help the job creators. this bill restores the authority

to impose major regulations on those who are accountable to the voters, their elected representatives in congress. opponents of the bill resist it for two primary reasons. they say, number one, it takes too much time for congress to approve or disapprove major regulations. secondly they say congress isn't expert enough to understand whether major regulations should be approved or disapproved. both objections account to one thing -- their belief that congress cannot be responsible and accountable for major decisions that affect america's economic life. fortunately the framers of the constitution saw things differently and so do most americans. the constitution gives congress the federal authority to regulate the economy, not the unelected bureaucrats. if the constitution gives the authority to congress then congress should be willing to accept the responsibility and the accountability for these

decisions. we should and we will take the time, we should and we will hold hearings, we should and we will allow amendments on the floor and votes and most importantly, mr. speaker, transparency, something that the job creators are not being allowed right now. this administration has admitted its failure to consider the cost and the benefits when it imposes major new regulations. this administration clearly intends to force through the regulatory process things that they cannot achieve in the people's congress. they do not want the transparency, they do not want the constituent input and they do not want to have the hearings where experts from all over the country can give balanced testimony. the american people struggle enough under the obama administration's failed economic policy, it's time for congress to say, enough. i urge mueclige -- my colleagues to vote for the reins act and i yield back the balance of my

time. let's help the job creators and vote yes. the chair: in the lieu of the amendment recommended by the committee of the judiciary printed in the bill. the amendment modified by the amendment, printed in part a of house report 112-311 shall be considered as adopted, shall be considered as an original bill for purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended is in order except those printed in part b of the. each such amendment may be offered only in in order. no amendment is in order except printed in part b of the report. a amendment may be designated by a member in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to the amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-311. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, i want to first thank, if i can, the author of this piece of legislation, the gentleman from kentucky, geoff davis. mr. davis has distinguished himself among not only our colleagues but also i believe

his strong support of free enterprise and the people of kentucky in doing his job, and i appreciate the opportunity to be here to help in that endeavor today. i believe that excessive government regulations are a significant barrier to the creation of private sector jobs in america today. this congress has made job creation a priority. as a matter of fact, we had the minority leader down talking just a few minutes ago about job creation and the priority that it needs to represent. as a result, we must review regulations which stand in the way of not only having more jobs but also the overuse of rules and regulations that prohibit and add to job and job creation. that proposal that i believe we need to look at is whether the benefits outweigh any potential economic harm that might come. my amendment requires the agencies to submit the report on a proposed federal rule to include an assessment of

anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of its implementation and to specify whether those jobs will come from the public or the private sector. this assessment will be part of the cost benefit analysis. it would be required to be submitted to the comptroller general and made available to each member of the house prior to our consideration of the rule. i believe that what we are doing here today is positive, not only benefit to the country in terms of recognizing that rules and regulations are burdening our economic engine but also we are doing something about it here today and i'm very, very proud to be here in support of this. earlier this year i introduced house res. 172 and the house passed it by bipartisan vote in february. it had authorized committees to report back to the house with their findings.

the reins act today is an extension of h.r. 72 and it's an important measure to ensure the government does not complete against the free enterprise system. and if they do congress would understand that at the time we pass our laws. mr. chairman, i ask my colleagues to support this important addition. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: i want to merely start off by recognizing that somewhere buried in this amendment is the gentleman from texas' recognition that regulations could or might create jobs. i want to thank him for that. but there's no credible evidence that regulations

depress job creation. we've talked about this for two days now. but at our hearing in the judiciary committee, one of the anti-regulatory bills that we considered we had an american enterprise institute witness, christopher demuth, from a -- the conservative think tank that a.e.i. is, and he stated in his prepared testimony that, focus on jobs can lead to confusion in regulatory debates . and that the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminant. i must say to my colleagues

that that is exactly the same impression that i came out of my judiciary committee hearing with and it's the same impression that i've come to realize is probably accurate in the debate for the last few days on the floor of the house itself. i'm concerned about this amendment because it would add to the analytical burdens of agencies the speculative assessment of jobs added or lost and how many of those jobs would be added or lost in the public and private sectors. and for these reasons i conclude that this amendment would not be helpful and i am unable to support it.

and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i thank my texas colleague for yielding me time and i also thank him for offering this amendment. it restores the accountability for regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. as congress makes those decisions, one of the most important facts to consider is whether new regulations reduce jobs or destroy them. the amendment guarantees that when agencies submit new regulations to congress their cost benefit analysis will be made available. the amendment also ensures that agencies will specifically identify the impact on private and public sector jobs. with that information, congress will be in position to determine whether to approve the rules. and the american people will be in position to hold congress

accountable for those decisions. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. i believe the case with which we are bringing forth today to congress is that jobs should be priority number one for this united states congress and for the american people. and not just middle class but investors and people who want to have great jobs in this country. for us to keep competitive with the world. for us to do that we need to recognize that people in washington, d.c., who probably wouldn't recognize the free enterprise system if they saw it, put rules and regulations on people. they don't understand the business. they don't understand how they operate and they sure as heck don't understand why it's important to have a free enterprise system, one which is nimble and prepared for competition. i spent 16 years without missing a day of work in the private sector prior to coming to congress. during those 16 years i learned firsthand about how rules and regulations by the federal government and others can

impede not only us and our ability to add jobs but perhaps more importantly for us to be competitive. i want to know today those people who will be of support when we look at a rule and regulation and understand why we would not want to know what the impact on jobs will be and that's what this vote will be. all members will have an opportunity to come down to say, we think there should be a consideration or should not be a consideration at the time a rule, which will be written by an agency, what will be the impact of that rule. it would elude me to understand why someone would not want to have that as part of a cost benefit analysis. with that, mr. chairman, i rest my case. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

pursuant to clause 6 -- it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-311. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to give myself as much time as i may consume. i rise to support my amendment to this dangerous bill, the

reins act. my amendment is simple. it would exempt any rule that the office of management and budget determines would promote job growth from the bill's congressional approval requirement which is very cumbersome. the republican majority claims that job growth is its top priority, and if that's the case, then my republican friends should support this amendment. in reality we all know this bill will not create a single job and it's part of the majority's anti-regulatory agenda to make it virtually impossible to implement rules for our health and safety. this bill does not fine tune the regulatory process as the republicans say. it will do nothing but make the regulatory process more bureaucratic and impose unnecessary hurdles for the agencies seeking to inact rules to protect our health and -- enact rules to protect health and safety.

the majority has a scare tactic, that is regulations kill jobs and that's nothing but a myth. the national federation of independent businesses, which describes itself as the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses, does a regular survey of small business or small businesses, and it found that the single most important problem facing small businesses is poor sales, not regulations. the reins act would delay if not halt regulations that are necessary for the health and safety of our constituents. further, the bill would slow down regulations that may actually foster job growth. thus, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly concerned about job growth, i would encourage them to support this amendment. i hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment because the regulations that will help put unemployed americans back to work should

take effect without unnecessary delay. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis, the sponsor of the legislation. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i could not disagree with the gentleman from georgia more. it's obvious which one of us have run a business and which one is talking about a business. the reality of regulatory impact on business is huge. all you do is go and ask small business owners in our congressional districts if they can get credit because of the newly imposed fdic rules on lending. they will tell you they can't. they can't get credit because of the new regulations. banks are being consolidated and going under now. we're finding the rash environment regulations throughout the ohio valley. machine tool operators, steel mill operators say they will be out of business if the cap and trade carbon regulations are

imposed by the e.p.a. these are facts. health care right now is imposing hiring freezes with the affordable care act. once again, there is no reason under any circumstance that we should exempt major regulations that do indeed have real impact on hiring, investment, job creation and especially individuals who want to take the risk to start a business. congress should not abdicate its responsibility any longer regarding these rules. we should step up to the pleat and be accountable and if we -- plate and be atble and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. no, i've never operated a business on wall street and i'm not really concerned about wall street. wall street has been getting all of the breaks and this party, the tea party republicans, seem hell bent on shifting everything in their direction. i want to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished jo

from -- distinguished gentlewoman from texas, sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. may i ask how much time i have, please? the chair: the gentlelady has 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i'm pleased to join my dear friend and colleague on the judiciary committee, the gentleman from georgia, in offering this amendment. as the johnson-jackson lee amendment. and i hold a sign that i think speaks to the gist of this amendment, make it in america. a number of us have been on the floor of the house on a regular basis talking about creating jobs and making it in america. a good friend from texas just passed an amendment without opposition and i see no reason why the jackson lee-johnson, johnson-jackson lee amendment cannot be accepted in the very same way. bruce bartlett, one of the senior policy analysts in the reagan and george h.w. bush administration observed that regulatory uncertainty is a canard, an invented canard that allows those who use it to use current economic problems to

pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out and in other words it is it -- it is a simple case of tunism that regulations don't stop you from creating jobs. in actuality it provides clean air, it provides clean food, it provides the opportunity for -- of a road map so businesses can do their work. the clean air act is a shining example, a lot of regulations came out of the clean air act. given that the economy since the cleer clean air act was passed in 1970 under richard mill house nixon, a republican, it shows that the economy has grown 204% and private sector job creation has expanded 86%. i would ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the johnson-jackson lee amendment. let's make it in america, let's ensure there is a regulatory process that exempts any regulation that creates jobs.

i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. mr. davis: i thank the gentleman. i would point out that gallup has released a survey that shows that one in three small business owners are worried about going out of business and overwhelmingly the respondents to this survey across the united states point to the uncertainty and the unpredictability caused by regulations. this bill, the reins act, is not antiregulation, it is about more transparency and accountability in regulation and congress stepping up to the plate. it's important that we work together to restore that trust and confidence in the congress, that we do our jobs, that we stand firm and that we exercise restraint over the executive branch so that it cannot act in scoring itself on whether jobs are created. let that be done by the congress who is held accountable, let us

stand for the vote and be accountable to our citizens. ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? mr. davis: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 112-311. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mr. schrader of oregon.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this amendment's pretty straightforward, the goal here is to actually codify some of what has been done here for just by executive order to make sure congress' intent is actually done, regardless of what the executive branch is considering. it basically codifies cost-benefit analysis in statute that we would like to have. as we all know a lot of times some of our agencies get a little overzealous and some of the cost-benefit that they do or don't do does not actually reflect a lot of the real world criteria by which american men and women and businesses actually operate through. so our goal here is to actually follow through on what's already

existing law but just codify it so it's not a huge change. there is a little bit more to it. right now a lot of the independent federal agencies are not subject to this executive order and of course this amendment would actually codify that they should be. there's no reason any federal agency should be exempt from giving americans the idea of what it's going to cost, what sort of benefit we're going to get out of this at the end of the day. and last but not least i think one of the big pieces that is very, very important, as a man of science, if you will a little bit, i'd like to know the assumptions by which these cost-benefit analyses are done. that oftentimes influences the outcome. it's important for the agencies, the businesses and again others in this country to look at what assumptions are being made when these cost-benefit analyses are done. sometimes they deserve to be challenged, sometimes questions need to be raised. so i think it's extremely important that any cost-benefit analysis, the assumption should be made public and transparent

and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? smith schmidt mr. chairman, i oppose -- mr. smith: mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close, i'm prepared to yield to the gentleman from kentucky to close who will reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. smith schmidt mr. chairman, i'll -- mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon has yielded back his time. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. davis: i thank the gentleman. i also oppose the amendment. the amendment leaves to each agency to determine how it will conduct cost-benefit analysis of new regulations. this is regrettable. each agency will be tempted to design rules that can can manipulate to claim that benefits routinely outweigh costs and in past administrations there was a divergence of standard, no

continuity and virtually no reduction in regulations or understanding of this across the whole of government. the regulatory accountability act which the house passed on december 2, 2011, calls for agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit annal sills. this improves quality and prevents deceptive actions by rogue agencies. the amendment undercuts that effort, similarly under executive order 12866 the president has long required agencies to follow uniform guidelines for cost-benefit analyses. the amendment undermines that requirement too. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schrader: ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment that would reduce the threshold for a major rule from $100 million or more to $50 million. this would ensure greater accountability. let's keep this in perspective. i based this amendment on legislation that has already

been adopted by the house in 1995 with bipartisan support, to -- which lowered the threshold to $50 million. it passed with a vote of 277-141 . with much of today's leadership who were here at the time supporting it. also in perspective, in fiscal year 2011 only 2.6% of all the rules that were classified as major and in 2010, in f.y. -- only 3% met that criteria. let's keep that in consideration. would you be satisfied with only 2% or 3% of your food being inspected? or 2% or 3% of the aircraft and the rules which we fly? according to the small business

administration in 2008 it cost the economy $1.75 trillion in regulations. we just went through a gut-wrenching supercommittee that tried to reduce $1.5 trillion but yet, but yet we let every year hundreds of billions of dollars pass through without involvement. without involvement of congress. since january of this year we have already seen 67,000 more pages of regulation, 88 million hours of man hours that have been lost by businesses and employers trying to respond to the regulatory reform. none of this has had congressional oversight or approval. canada realizes there needs to

be more accountability and they require all rules and regs of $50 million or more to come before their legislative body. congress, having jurisdiction of only 2% or 4%, maybe better than nothing, but i believe america deserves better. we need a system of checks and balances. no wonder the american people have lost their confidence in congress and the federal government. i'm hopeful that the chairman will see the issues that i've raised here today and work with me on future legislations to correct that. with that i yield back 30 seconds or 30 seconds to chairman smith. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman from west virginia for yielding me time. i do share my colleague's desire to bring more congressional scrutiny to major regulations and appreciate his interest in the subject. i know that recent major regulations have hit west

virginia and the gentleman's constituents particularly hard. the environmental protection agency's major regulations that affect energy sources in power production are among the most troubling. i look forward to continued discussions with the gentleman on these and other issues of interest to him and i'll yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from west virginia. mr. schrader: -- mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. since congress deserves to have more specific numbers that have not been available from g.a.o. and the c.b.o. relative to lowering this threshold from $100 million to $50 million, i ask unanimous consent to for now -- to withdraw my amendment. mr. chairman. the chair: without objection. mr. mckinley: thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house

report 112-311. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. mccarthy: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mrs. mccarthy of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. mccarthy: i rise today to offer an amendment to the deeply flawed bill before us now. we continue the majority's political motivated attacks on regulations. for the past two weeks we have considered bills design to slow down and stop the regulatory process. the bill before us today doesn't target just the rules that the majority might have you believe, it would hamper all rule mations, even those essential to public health and safety. my amendment today seeks to address that issue by exempting

the reins act regulations related to food safety, workplace safety, air quality, consumer product safety or water quality. these issues are too important to be impended by the majority's talking points. consumers can't be put at risk because one house of congress can't get its act together to pass food safety regulations. children at risk from being exposed to toxic substance in toys can't wait 535 new regulators to weigh in. that's us, the members of congress. people getting sick from tainted water supplies shouldn't be put at further risk by a legislative vote from one half of one-third of the branch of the government. today's bill, the reins act, would amend the congressional view act to prohibit a majority rule from going into effect unless congress enacts the joint resolution of approval. specifically approving the rule. this is bizarre.

backwards and unnecessary piece of legislation. the majority claims to be aiming to streamline the regulatory process and reduce the negative effects of a bureaucracy on the american people and on the american businesses. ironically, however, this bill has -- the ability of adding 535 of us additional regulators to the process. each member of congress will now have to perform the role of a regulator. congress will be forced to review the rules and regulations regarding highly technical matters currently handled by subject area experts. this technical complexity is why we have professionals in the executive branch with subject matter expertise to work on these rules and regulations. this has been the cornerstone of the principle of the separation of powers. the congress is intended to represent the people and electors. the executive branch is intended to implement those

laws. that implication takes the forms of issuing rules, regulations into specific guidance on how the la will be implemented. the reins act inappropriately puts congress into duties that should be carried out only by the executive branch. congress does have oversight responsibility and the duty to monitor these implications. but we currently have methods to address the problems when they do occur and we do not need this bill. the bill also will lead to confusion, uncertainty and more gridlock. thanks to the reins act' requirements that congress approve of every major rule, one house of congress will essentially have a legislative veto over any major regulations issued. the worst time for businesses is uncertainty, and the reins act increases it in the regulatory process. after engaging in the process of helping to shape the regulations through the rulemaking progress, businesses will have to wonder what

actions will congress take, what legislative deal making will occur, will congress approve of the regulation, will congress approve of the -- above regulation? this uncertainty keeps businesses from investing and from hiring new workers. more uncertainty under the reins act is the opposition of what we need. congress should spend more of its time thureoly considering and acting -- thoroughly considering enacting legislation. we should have this in the executive branch. we should monitor this. in the cases where correction is needed, use the current legislative tools that we have at our disposal to address those issues. i do urge all of our members to vote for my amendment, to protect the american people. we don't need more gridlock here in washington. that's why everybody back at home is mad at everybody. we need to go on with our work. we have to make sure this is a

streamline process so we get small businesses growing again, get people back to work. that's what the american people want from all of us. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. davis: i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. this carves out essential regulations, including major rules on food safety, clean water, clean air. in many cases these are precisely the agency actions that pose the most course, do not implement the people's representatives in the congress and in the senate. a good example is the environmental protection agency's recent proposal to control mercury emissions from coal fired power plants. they say it would cost $11 million to achieve.

that is an $18 -- 1,833-1. when agencies prepare good regulations, congress will be able to approve them. this provides agencies with a powerful incentive to get major regulations things right from the first time. look at the 1833-1 cost benefit ratio, who will pay for that? saying it's the rich on wall street who benefit are entirely wrong. it's hardworking taxpayers, it's the middle class, the working poor and elderly whose utility rates will be through the roof as a result of a regulation that was opposed against the intent of the congress. when an agency prepares a bad regulation, however, congress will be able under the reins act to correct the agency and

send it back to the drawing board. in the end the agency will find a way to issue a good regulation that congress will approve. it will improve the dialogue between the executive branch and the congress, but until it does those who must pay for regulations will not have to pay for the cost of a misguided major rule made by people who are not accountable to our voters. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mrs. mccarthy: mr. speaker, with that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. mccarthy: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-311. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. what america wants and what i believe is important to the institution that we have such great respect for is for members to work together. there are a number of amendments that were allowed by the rules committee and i thank

them. and the idea should be that these amendments improve a bill. it is obvious that i disagree with this bill because i think it will literally shut down government. if you cannot pass simple bills that have been passed out of the house of representatives and now to the other body and they have not yet passed, we finished one year of the 112th congress, how do you think we can manage what is called major rulemaking, 80 different rules would have to be approved by the president, the house and the senate? literally the american people would be held hostage. so this amendment is a cooperative amendment. i think it makes the bill better. the reason why i have our soldiers, most likely on the front line of afghanistan, is on the account of a heinous act of terrorism on 9/11, sour --

our soldiers were dispatched to afghanistan. in doing so they had as their backup the department of homeland security, a department whose responsibility is to secure the homeland. simply ask the 9/11 families how serious its to secure the homeland. my amendment would simply say that homeland security regulations or regulations dealing with securing the homeland, making america safe, would be exempt from this dilatory, long-winded process of approval. we need urgency when we speak of securing the homeland. we deal with not only terrorism potential from around the world but it is also possible to have a catastrophic event that deals with a domestic terrorist attack. i cannot believe that my colleague would not want to act in a bipartisan manner and in particular with the reins act that requires a voted on

resolution of disapproval, otherwise this amendment does not go into place excuse me, reuss of approval, i cannot believe we would not in a bipartisan way accept the jackson lee amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. davis: i oppose the amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: i thank the gentleman. i would point out first of all any national emergency the president of the united states does have the ability to enact an emergency rule, but what this amendment seeks to do is shield the department of homeland security from congress' authority to approve regulations under the reins act. that shield should be denied. for example, take the department's rule to extend compliance deadlines for states to secure driver's license under the real i.d. act.

terrorists used fraud lens licensed to board airplanes to murder 3,000 innocent americans. d.h.s. continues to extend the deadline. another example is the department's 2009 rule to recall the bush administration's no-match rule. that regulation helped companies to identify illegal workers and comply with federal immigration law. when the obama administration issued its rule to repeal no-match, it put the interest of illegal immigrants above those unemployed americans and legal immigrants. this is the kind of decisionmaking that takes place at the department of homeland security. congress should use every tool it can reassert to -- reassert its authority over the legislative rulemaking functions that is delegated to d.h.s. the law would improve communication in crisp pieces of legislation. the reins act is available to do that. the point of the reins act is accountability and each congressman must take a stand to be accountable that cost our

citizenry $100 million or more annually. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i thank the chairman for his explanation. i think he plays right into the reason why he should join me in making this a bipartisan amendment. frankly, i don't think we'd want to throw out or delay any process of rulemaking dealing with securing the homeland. i think when the gentleman was citing licenses, he was speaking of 9/11. it is now 11 years and we have passed a number of rulemaking that has improved securing the homeland. as a member of the homeland security committee, i'm quite aware of the progress that we've made such as not having to address that kind of, if you will, mishap, more than a mishap but that kind of lack of communication that we had on 9/11. the point i want to make is our soldiers are on the front line in afghanistan. they're asking, as someone would say on the playing field, have you got my back? the department of homeland

security is that department, created from the select committee on homeland security, which i was on, now on the homeland security committee, to in fact provide for the security of the nation. with that in mind, it is i think untenable to think of thwarting that process. what we have in the reins act is truly the reins act. it is a stranglehold on moving the nation forward on good regulations, clean air, clean water but in this instance securing the homeland security. i believe that having the president, the senate and the house come together in a reasonable period of time to approve a rule dealing with securing the homeland while soldiers are on the front line defending us is an atrocious position to put the securing of the nation in. and let me just say this, bruce bartlett is a republican. he said the regulatory uncertainty that republicans talk about is a canard invented by republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business

community year in and year out. this is a republican. the question is that separates the special interest, the reins act is here. they have the majority. more than likely it will pass, but they're going to ignore our war and our fight to secure the homeland. here's the front line. what are we doing? we're putting a stranglehold on these amendments, rulemaking, rather, that will come forward that is attempting to help the american people. if we have to do something for the transportation security administration and the security checkpoints and we need a rule, it's going to be held back because of this process. i reserve my time. i ask support for the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. davis: i continue to reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady from texas' time has expired. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to reiterate that it would not impinge, i believe

it would actually improve our ability to manage rule making and regulation that relates to security. indeed, the strongest authority in the house of representatives who could speak on that very issue spoke in favor of this bill early earlier. congressman chris gibson from new york, who commanded a brigade in afghanistan, where that picture was taken, and also a battalion in iraq in 2005. and i would defer to his authority in military experience on that fact. the real issue, the real issue is accountability and restoring transparency and checks and balances to the executive branch so that the american people do not have the reach of government into their back pockets, into their personal lives, into their schools, into their communities and frankly even in northern kentucky, into our sewer pipes without the consent of the governed and with that i oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. jackson: mr. chairman, i -- ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 112-311. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 479, the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chairman. my amendment is very straightforward. it would exempt our nation's veterans from the burdensome layers and hurdles that h.r. 10 imposes and adds to the administration -- administrative rule making process and would specifically remove veterans from the bill's so-called reining provisions that require a joint resolution of congress, before an agency puts forth a major rule, to help our men and women in uniform when they become veterans and after they return home from service. many of my colleagues and i disagree with this bill for a variety of reasons including the author's premise that reducing the administration's ability to regulate and promulgate rules will result in job creation. but whether or not we agree on the direction and approach to best health and promote america's future, we all agree on some things. we all agree that the last thing

we want to do is to pass legislation that will delay assistance to those veterans who have selflessly chosen to fight for our country and deserve every ounce of assistance we can provide them when they come back home. veterans deserve educational opportunitys, rehabilitation for sometimes very severe disabilities, mr. chairman, mental health treatment for post traumatic stress disorder, employment opportunities, housing opportunities. and delaying rule making authority will have dire consequences for our veterans. for example, mr. chair, one very disturbing issue for me has been the high rate of suicides among our service members. really, we can't delay this kind of assistance. in fact, last year there were more deaths among our troops from suspected suicide than deaths from hostile combat. we're facing an epidemic here at

home, too. a recent report from the center for new american security noted that 1% of the population has served in the military. and yet those service members represent 20% of all the suicides in the united states. and resources for the military are sparse. according to a recent veterans health administration survey of mental health providers, 40% responded that they could not schedule a new appointment at their clinic within 14 days. 70% of surveyed facilities cited an inadequate number of staff to treat veterans. and 70% said that they just simply lacked space. we also know that there's a serious unemployment barrier among our veterans as they return to civilian life. and the unemployment rate among vets who served in iraq and afghanistan since 9/11 is 12.1%, substantially higher than the national average that we're so

concerned about now. unemployment among vets will spike as we end the war in iraq. the last 20,000 troops are expected to arrive by the end of the year from iraq. and we can expect about an additional 10,000 veterans from afghanistan to come home before the end of the year and 23,000 by the end of 2012. we just can't delay assistance to our veterans and this area, mr. chairman, where democrats and republicans have typically come together and agreed. yet h.r. 10, the so-called rein act, will have unintended consequences and dangerous consequences for veterans who of course have received our undying gratitude and support. i really ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and support my amendment because this is not an area where we want to delay services to them.

we don't want to subject our vets to the politics of washington and a gridlock, hyperpartisan congress that struggles even to extend unemployment insurance in a recession or a payroll tax to middle class people, let alone a credit default by something so historically difficult had been as raising the debt ceiling. i just think that americans will agree with me that our nation's veterans deserve to be excluded from the gridlock that this will invariably cause. let's come together once more and adopt this amendment, mr. chair. not just for the troops that need help now, but for the troops that will be here in the near knewture and i reserve the balance of my time -- future and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. davis: i oppose the amendment. i respect my friend from wisconsin with whom i worked on numerous pieces of legislation

related to child homelessness and affordable housing but i'm going to disagree with the premise of the legislation. as a veteran, as a former -- former army ranger and complite commander and who served in the middle east, the one thing that i would say is that nothing in the reins act would in any way inhibit or impede the delivery of services to our veterans, of whom i have been a champion in my time in congress on numerous pieces of legislation. what i wouldsy is that the reins act would provide a framework for discussion were there a rule to a arise that hit that cost threshold to assure crisp, clear improvement, particularly in dealing with backlogs. when we deal with the v.a. specifically i have had area managers. veterans administration point out specific rules that cause increased queuing and waiting time that were not being addressed. this amendment would prevent us from being able to address such things were they to hit the threshold. the amendment carves out all

regulations that affects veterans and veteran affairs out of the reins act and frankly reins act supporters honor america's veterans. we have had america's veterans speaking in favor of this bill throughout the afternoon. and i believe that ultimately we're going to make decisions that will be in keeping with the will of the american people and in the best interest of those veterans as we move forward. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for responding even though he doesn't agree with me. i'm just looking at about at least 14 rules that have been implemented very expeditiously on behalf of our veterans since september 11. and it is chilling to think about the delays that may be caused by an extra process and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. davis: thank you. that's a point that the gentlewoman and i will agree to

disagree on. we have seen the congress move in an expedited manner in national security, in dealing with our veterans and there would be no difference under this legislation. ultimately we know that congress must approve all legislation relating to every agency of the federal government and will be doing our constitutional duty as i remind everybody listening to restore transparency, accountability and a check and balance so our citizens and our voters can hold somebody in the government accountable instead of faceless bureaucrats. it's a solution that everyone should support, congress will be more accountable. i ask all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. moore: mr. chairman, i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 offered by mr. johnson of georgia, amendment number 3 offered by mr. schrader of oregon, amendment number 5 offered by mrs. mccarthy of new york, amendment number 6 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas and amendment number 7 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-311 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 187, the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 3 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, on which which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-311 offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 238, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 112-311 by the gentlelady from new york, mrs. mccarthy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5

printed in part b of house report 112-311 offered by mrs. mccarthy of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 276, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-311 by the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-311, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 242, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 112-311 by the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redez igthate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 7 printed in house report 112-311, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the

yays are 183, the nays are 240. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 10 and pursuant to house resolution 479, i report the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with a further amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the

committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 10 and pursuant to house resolution 479 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with a full amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amendment chapter 8 of title 5 of united states code to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. would all members please take their conversations from the

floor, clear the aisles and the well. let the house be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. dede-lauro: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? ms. delauro, i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: ms. delauro moves to recommit the bill back to the committee of the judiciary with the following amendment, on page 4, line 32, insert after the first period the follow, protection of food safety and consumers' right to know through country of origin labeling.

section 401 through 408 of this chapter from the executive in -- regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act shall not affect food safety regulations. these shall continue to apply after enactment to any such rule as appropriate. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise to offer a motion that would exempt country of origin labeling from the regulations affected by this legislation. this is a final amendment to the bill which will not kill it or send it back to committee. instead, we will move final passage on the bill as amended. we have had a heated debate over this act.

i have very strong concerns about it. but, however one feels about the legislation before us, we should all be able to agree on fundamental principles. first, that it is the responsibility of this institution and of government to see that the health and safety of american families are protected. this includes protecting americans from unsafe and contaminated food. and second, the consumer should be able to know where the food and products they buy come from so that they can make informed decisions about their purchases as they should be able to in a free market. that is what country of origin labeling does and it is why my final amendment simply exempts country of origin labeling from the upside lying bill before us. it gives us an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way to protect the health and safety of our constituents and to give the american public the

information -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. let the house be in order. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. delauro: it will give the american public the information they need and clearly want to make informed decisions for their families. more than 40 other countries we trade with have a country of origin labeling system in place. and the majority of american consumers continue to support country of origin labeling. we know that food-borne illnesses are a major public hell threat. they account for roughly 48 million illnesses, 100,000 hospitalizations and over 3,000 deaths in this country every year. every year, one in every six americans become sick from the food that they eat. our youngest and oldest americans are the most vulnerable to these illnesses and right now, roughly 08% of

the seafood and 60% of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the united states have been produced outside of our borders. amid all this imported food, our ability to ensure that food products are safe and not contaminated is dwindling. the f.d.a. inspects less than 2% of the imported food in its jurisdiction. yet, 70% of apple juice we drink was produced in china, roughly 90% of the shrimp that we eat was produced outside of the united states. across this 2%, the f.d.a. finds frighteningly large numbers of shipments with dangerous food safety violations, including the presence of pathogens an chemical contamination. families should be able to know where their food is coming from. just this morning a japanese food producer announced the recall of 400,000 cans of infant formula after traces of

radioactive cease yum were found in their -- cesium were found in the powder. after the nuclear accident in japan earlier this year, americans were concerned about the safety of food from that area. we recently experienced a liss tiera outbreak in -- a listeria outbreak in cantaloupes with sickened 129 people and killed 29 more. germany saw an e. coli crisis that killed dozens ancicened thousands. we saw salmonella outbreak in crushed pepper that killed several people and a recall of over half a billion eggs and almost 2,000 americans becoming ill. country of origin labeling does country of origin labeling does not lead to american job