o more representative democracy. the bureaucracy that writes the regulations has no accountability. they write regulations that cost too much that strangle the job creation that both the gentleman from georgia and i would like to see greater job creation and more jobs for the middle class. i yield myself an additional 15 seconds. so this bill is about restoring representative democracy to the american people in fairness to the american people in protecting their economy and protecting their jobs by making sure that bureaucrats are held accountable and send those regulations back to the congress for an up or down vote that yes those regulations comport with what the congress intended when they wrote the floor. if they comport, they take effect, if they don't, they don't take effect. it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins.

mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. chairman. i stand in strong support of the reins act of 2015. the gentleman from georgia said in opposition to this bill just a few moments ago that we should be opposed to it because, quote, it would end rulemaking as we know it. what a great statement on why we should vote for the reins act, because that's exactly what we're trying to do. we must end rulemaking as we know it. i'm proud to co-sponsor this bill because i know firsthand how this administration's overbearing regulatory policies have devastated my state, west virginia. it's businesses, it's work -- its businesses its workers, its fundamental way of life. west virginia's third district deserve better. all west virginians deserve

better. all americans deserve better. the economist recently estimated that federal regulations cost our nation more than $1.8 trillion per year. in west virginia for example the e.p.a. has implemented sweeping rules and regulations that have driven out thousands of good-paying jobs, reduced demand for west virginia coal and raised energy prices for all americans. this administration is out of touch with our nation's hardworking families. this bill, the reins act, will protect our communities small businesses and workers from the administration's crushing regulatory onslaught, and i strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support. i yield back mr. speaker.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you mr. speaker. my colleagues have repeatedly pointed to argue to the fact -- or to the allegation that the rate of federal regulations is growing, but a recent report by the nonpartisan congressional research service reported that the length of the code of federal regulations has no baring on the scope or impact of federal regulations. so in other words, just because the volume of paper's growing, they want to argue that there is an onslaught, an explosion of federal regulations. as i pointed out earlier, yes, there have been new regulations having to do with dodd-frank which protects us from another

economic meltdown that we suffered under the bush administration, and also the affordable care act, which has enabled 16 million americans to have access to the health care system who did not have it prior to the passage of the affordable care act. so this argument that regulations are killing us is not -- is not -- it's nonfactual. and with that i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i have only one speaker remaining, and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia has 8 1/2 minutes left. mr. johnson: thank you.

with that i will say i will close and just say that this debate has been about whether or not we need a law that would stop federal rulemaking in its tracks. this debate has been about whether or not as we move forward into the future, as society advances, aztec nothing takes us to places where we've never been before, as medical care -- as technology takes us to places where we've never been before, as medical care explodes, as things change as they do in the anals of human history, the question is whether we'll have the federal bureaucracy that keeps us with the change and keeps up with the need for an implementation

regimen to enact or to see that the laws that are enacted by congress can in fact be accomplished. with no regulations to support the measures that congress passes -- but i'll note that this congress doesn't pass much, but that's what we're here for to keep up with change and to legislate so that change is good for americans, their health, safety and well-being, and when we do do that, if we have a regulatory regime that is gummed up and inoperable then it hurts america's ability to compete in this global marketplace. it hurts america's economy to

be an economy where all people can share in the prosperity of it. and so this is what this debate has been about. are we going to change america are we going to throw out the administrative procedure act which has been an orderly way and predictable way for regulations to be promulgated and placed into effect? are we going to subject that rulemaking process to a dysfunctional process like we have here in congress today where we can't even pass the icks port import bank -- export-import bank legislation which, by the way, you say government does not create jobs but there will be government jobs lost as a result of us going home early without having passed the export-import bank

re-authorization. government does create jobs, and we're going to lose tens of thousands of jobs because of our inability or our refusal to bring a measure to the floor, which has the votes, bipartisan votes to pass this chamber and which has already passed the senate in a transportation bill . but we're going to go home without having done that, and i will tell you we'll go home without having, if this legislation passes, we'll go home without passing a single legislation and government will be gummed up. and who will prosper? the economic elites who make money regardless. so with that i will call on my to oppose this legislation, and i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: during this de-- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: during this debate, my friends on the other side raised quite a few false alarms. if this bill passes, all important regulation will stop, they say. but that's not true. all regulation that is worthy of congress' approval will continue. if this bill passes, why export decisionmaking will stop because congress will have the final say on new regulations, not washington bureaucrats. but that's not true. congress will have the benefit of the best evidence and arguments expert agencies can offer in support of their new regulations. congress is capable of determining whether that evidence and those arguments are good or not and deciding what finally will become law. that's the job our founding fathers entrusted to us in the constitution. we should not shirk from it. i will tell you, though, what

will stop if this bill becomes law is the endless avalanche of new major regulations that do not deserve congress' approval because they impose massive unjustified costs that crush jobs, crush wages and crush the spirits of america's families and small business owners. think about what that will mean to real americans suffering the real burdens of the obama administration's overreaching regulations. let me tell you about some of them who have testified before the judiciary committee. think of rob james a city councilman from avon lake, ohio a small town that faced devastation by ideologically driven anti-fossil fuel power plant regulations. these regulations were expected to destroy jobs in avon lake. harm avon lake's families and make it harder for avon lake to find the resources to provide emergency resources, quality schools and help for its

neediest citizens all while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions that were the stated target of the regulations. well, the supreme court just invalidated those regulations, but not before multiple years of job-crushing compliance costs had to be borne by those who challenged the rules. think of bob sells from my district. he runs a virginia-based division of a heavy construction materials producer. his company and its workers were harmed by e.p.a. cement kiln emissions regulations that were technically unattainable and vastly changed from what the e.p.a. posed for public comment. other e.p.a. emission regulations that were stricter than needed to protect health, gerrymandered to have expensive controls on other types of emissions and prohibited commonsense uses of cheap and safe fuel that could eventually help the environment and the

department of transportation regulations that without increasing safety, vastly increased record keeping for ready-mix concrete drivers, unnecessarily limited their hours and suppressed their wages. this is what the reins act will stop not have costly regulation that unless congress stands up to protect the american people, this administration will continue to load onto the backs of struggling american families and small business owners. support the american people, support the reins act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. bruent to the rule, the bill -- pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purposes of amendment under the five-minute rule, the amendment in a nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in the bill, modified

by the amendment printed in part a of house report 114-230. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-230. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report and 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 subjected to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. 1 printed in part b of house report 114-230.

for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> 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 114-230 offered by mr. young of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380, the gentleman from iowa, mr. young, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee chairman goodlatte, for his kindness in allowing me to come forward with an amendment here. my amendment is quite simple and i believe it should be bipartisan. my amendment quite simply requires agencies to make available on the internet the data, the science, studies and analyses that a major rule is based on. this transparency allows everyone access to the source information and the same information so we can all be on the same page when we talk about these things.

no one is left in the dark. you know iowans ask me and i'm sure the same questions are asked other members when they're home, how do regulations come to these conclusions, how do these regulators get to where they get to when they do these, what science do they use, is it sound science? and they want to see the same sound data and science and they say, can we see it too? and i don't have the information at the time. this amendment allows americans to see that science that the regulators use. . my amendment helps answers these questions by making this information available. federal regulations affect every aspect of a hardworking american's day from the moment they wake up until they go to bed at night. they affect america's job creators big and small, with sometime exorbitant costs to comply. but also devastating costs of lost opportunities to grow their businesses and create more jobs. federal regulations have an

enormous, a giant impact on the health of our national economy to the tune of $1.88 trillion in 2014. federal regulation is a constantly growing entity. the code of federal regulations as we know is monstrous in size. costs and effect on our economy and job creators and bank accounts of hardworking americans. i have a real dedicated interest in tackling this issue of regulations because they affect our rights and the economy, and i'm willing to work with anyone on these issues. i have other ideas. i think we should know who these regulators are. who is writing these rules and regs. what's their background. we as members put our names on amendments and bills. we don't know the names of the people who are writing these regulations. the ideas i have also -- we do financial disclosure reports here in congress members do as well.

as our senior staff. i think we should consider the impact this would have on those who do these regulations. making them do a financial disclosure report. these are some of the ideas. today my amendment is about making sure the science and data that these regulators, what they come to a conclusion on are made available to the public so we could all be on the same page and there's transparency and we are not left in the dark. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland -- ms. edwards: i rise to came time in opposition to the amendment but the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. edwards: thank you very much. this amendment the young amendment, looks eerily similar to the so-called secret science act, h.r. 1030, that the house passed in a partisan vote back in march except the problem is that this bill is actually even worse. h.r. 1030 would apply these

harmful restrictions to the e.p.a. but this amendment that we are looking at today would affect every single federal agency. let's look. the amendment would require an agency as part of its rule making process to make all information used in the creation of a rule publicly accessible including all the data. that would mean that any data that are considered confidential, such as health information or business records would most likely become off limits. so, for example, an agency trying to create labeling requirements for toxic chemicals wouldn't be able to use a study that uses personal health data as long as that data are deemed confidential. new scientific methods and data could be restricted because the information including data protected by intellectual property law. when we pass the secret science act on a partisan vote last march, i mentioned in my opposition that it would force the e.p.a. to choose between protecting our health and environment and maintaining the privacy of patient medical records and the confidentiality

of of business records. if that isn't good enough, let's consider the cost. when the house science committee was considering the bill i mentioned previously that does exactly the same thing that the young amendment does except to all federal agencies, democrats on the committee pointed out that the congressional budget office estimated that it would cost the e.p.a. just for that one bill, it would cost the e.p.a. $250 million to comply with the new regulations. if that's how much it's going to cost the e.p.a. for one regulatory requirement, imagine what the costs would be if you expand this mandate across every single federal agency. the costs would be astronomical. between the costs and the harmful restrictions that this imposes on our federal agencies, the amendment sets up an impossible hurdle for those agencies to overcome. we are asking them to decide between compromising institutional review board

ethics and doing their job to protect the american people. it's very clear that the young amendment and provisions like it are not, in fact, about transparency. it really is to block federal agencies from doing their jobs. their jobs of protecting our air, giving us clean water, making sure that our food supply is safe, checking on medical devices so they don't harm us. our prescription drugs so that they don't make us sick. our privacy safeguards for our workplace information. our workplace safety standards. protections against wall street and its predatory land lending practices. i would ask my colleagues to oppose this harmful and anti-science amendment oppose the final bill, and oppose this amendment because of the restrictions that it would place on the american people. with that i yield the balance of my time to my colleague from georgia. the chair: the gentlelady yields her time -- mr. johnson: how much time is left? the chair: two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. this amendment i oppose.

it would require agencies to publish in the federal register a list of information on which a rule is based including data, scientific and economic studies, and cost benefit analyses and where the public can access this information online. this amendment purports to make scientific information available that is used in developing a rule the amendment does not define or limit what would actually constitute, quote, data or the term data. as a result, the term could include sensitive health data classified data, confidential business information and all other forms of information subject to rule making by any federal agency. now, especially in light of the recent disclosure that personal and sensitive information of millions of federal employees maintained by the office of personnel management was hacked

congress should be working to prevent federal data breaches by reducing the accumulation and potential loss of sensitive data rather than requiring that the pub -- publication of such vast amounts of data be the rule of law. and that's sensitive data. we just simply cannot afford that in this day and time, and in sum this amendment would exacerbate the risks of identity theft and data breaches and for that reason i must oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do so as well. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time of the the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: mr. chairman, how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. young: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i support his amendment. reins act restores the congress the accountability for

regulatory decision that is impose major burdens on our economy. by doing that, it ultimately strengthens the ability of the people to hold washington accountable. there could hardly be a better way to assure that congress will exercise the authority under the bill soundly and that the people can hold congress and washington accountable than answer the gentleman's amendment. this amendment guarantees when agencies publish new regulation, they'll let congress and the people know immediately how to access online the key scientific, economic, and cost benefit information on which the agencies base the regulations. for this real time access to information in hand, congress will be better positioned to scrutinize the agency's decisions and the public will be better positioned to hold congress bible if congress approves regulations that it shouldn't. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. young: how much time do i have left? the chair: one minute, sir. the chair: americans deserve to

know how they are being regulated and what the science is that's being used that affect their daily lives. right now we are left in the dark folks. we need sunlight. sunlight is the best disinfectant here. we are unable to right now to challenge what we can't see. and that's a hard fight for the american people to put up against. i'm urging it favorable for this amendment. i ask my colleagues to support t i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question sont amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. t the amendment is agreed to. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlelady has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from maryland will be postponed. the amendment offered by the

gentleman from iowa will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: thank you, 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 number 114-230 offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as i have traveled across the eighth district of missouri one of the largest concerns i hear from my constituents is the uncertainty surrounding the affordable care act. individuals are concerned about how the relationships with their doctor will change and how their health care costs are rising. businesses are left with

uncertainty as well. they are afraid to hire folks because of the health care costs. which leaves them understaffed, hospitals are consolidating, and insurers are merging as a result of the law. the simple truth is that my constituents have fewer options. the affordable care act is hurting health care and hurting jobs in missouri and across the country. that is why i'm offering an amendment to protect families and job creators from the mounting uncertainty of the affordable care act. my amendment revises the definition of a major regulation to specifically include any regulation made under the affordable care act. with over 3,000 pages of federal regulations already issued and many more to follow, congress must protect folks from this troublesome law and keep it from causing further damage to our health care system. mr. chairman there is a broad bipartisan concern to the affordable care act. this administration has demonstrated its own uncertainty through the delays to several

key provisions of the bill. congress must stand up for the folks back home and give the american people a voice. my amendment does just that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: i oppose this amendment, mr. speaker, because it would make the reins act thoroughly problematic insofar as the affordable care act is concerned. one of my principal concerns about the reins act is it would jeopardize the health and safety of americans by substantially delaying and possibly derailing critical regulations from ever going into effect. as currently drafted, the reins act only applies to major regulations, that is regulations having an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.

regulations causing a major increase in prices or costs for consumers, individual industries, governmental agencies or geographic regions. and regulations having a significant adverse impact on competition, employment, investment, and productivity. this amendment, however, would subject all regulations, not just major regulations issued under the affordable care act, to the reins acts act burdensome requirement. it's obvious that this amendment has a different purpose. it's yet another attempt by the majority to undermine the implementation of the comprehensive health care reform legislation that was enacted in to 10 -- 2010, the affordable care act. which has, i might remind my colleagues it's been upheld not once but twice by the united

states supreme court. we cannot allow the majority to do through this anti-regulatory bill what is -- what it has repeatedly failed to do during the last year and a half, actually during the last four years. namely to defeat health care reform. the reins act is a hopelessly flawed bill and this amendment would only make it worse. and accordingly i must strenuously object to the amendment and oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to vote against it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. smith: i'd like to yield two minutes to the chairman of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and support his amendment. the reins act restores to congress the accountability for regulatory decisions that impose

major burdens on our economy. this amendment strengthens congressional accountability for regulations under the patient protection and affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare. the p.p.a. was imposed over the will of the american people, implementation of obamacare has demonstrated that the act imposes a detrimental and unworkable reform of the nation's health care system. , and one after the other promises made to the american people by the act's supporters when the law was passed have been broken. . moreover, the obama administration's inaction to waive or suspend balm care requirements have made clear that regulatory actions to implement the act form a seamless web. too often actions to reverse one effect send ripple effects throughout the obamacare web, requiring adjustments of others a pecks pekts of implementation. this too, justifies the

amendment's requirement that congress approve any new regulations promulgated under the act. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment protects the folks back home. it stops the obama administration and unelected bureaucrats from issuing new health regulations and improves the role of congressional oversight. i urge adoption of this bill and i yield back the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. smith: mr. chair, could 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 missouri will be postponed.

it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman, the designee of the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. mr. davis: yes. the chair: this is an amendment by mr. sessions. mr. davis: i believe, mr. chairman, this is an amendment that is introduced by mr. sessions, while my name is also listed on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman will be treated as the designee. mr. davis: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-230 offered by mr. rodney davis of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380, the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. excessive government regulations are a significant barrier to private job -- the private sector job creation. this congress has made job creation a priority and therefore we believe it is important to have a role in reviewing these regulations to ensure that their proposed benefits outweigh any potential economic harm. the sessions-davis-wenstrup-barr amendment would have an assessment of jobs lost or gained as a result of an implementation of a rule. the agencies would be required

to specify whether those jobs come from the public or the private sector. this assessment is part of the cost-benefit analysis required to be submitted to the comptroller general and made to each house of congress prior to any consideration of the rule. over the past six years our nation's cumulative regulatory burden has increased exponentially. unfortunately, this out-of-control administration shows no signs of slowing down. the addition of 27 major new rules last year brought the administration's six-year total to an astounding 87 new regulations. this cost the country thousands of jobs and an estimated $80 billion annually. when regulations are considered for approval under the reins act, it is imperative that congress have a clear picture of their affect on jobs. this amendment will help us guard against job-killing regulations and will give congress important oversight over the executive branch's regulatory agenda. and at this time i'd like to reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment would mandate that the cost-benefit analysis for a proposed rule required by the reins act that is submitted to congress include an analysis of any jobs added or lost as a result of the proposed rule differentiating between public and private sector jobs. i should be clear that there is absolutely no credible evidence proving that regulations depress job creation. in fact, one of the majority's own witnesses at a hearing held in a prior congress before the house judiciary committee clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymied job growth and job creation. christopher demuff of the

american enterprise institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared testimony that the quote focus on jobs can lead to confusion in regulatory debates, end quote and that, quote, the employment affects of regulation, while important are indeterminate, end quote. even bruce bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the reagan and george herbert walker bush administrations, has refuted the claim that regulations undermine the economy or job growth. he explains that, quote no hard evidence is offered to -- for this claim. it is simple -- it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative ecochamber, end quote. while i appreciate the sensitivity that the author of this amendment has for employment and job development, i would encourage him to

support my amendment which would accept from the reins act's onerous requirements all regulations that the office of management and budget determines would result in net job development. my amendment would ensure that job-creating rules are not delayed or derailed as a result of the reins act's nearly impossible procedural hurdles. unfortunately, this amendment could even add -- could add even more analytical burdens on agencies by forcing them to make a speculative assessment of whether a regulation will facilitate job creation or have a depressive effect. instead of trying to turn congress into a superadministrative agency, which is what the reins act would do, we should be considering legislation that would actually create jobs, stimulate our nation's economy and help millions of struggling americans regain their

financial footing with meaningful ways to encourage full employment. with that i'll reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has two minutes remaining. mr. davis: at this point i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my friend from virginia, the chairman of the house judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i support his amendment. the bill restores to congress the accountability for regulatory decisions that impose major burdens on our economy. as congress makes those decisions, one of the most important factors to consider is whether new regulations produce jobs or destroy them. the bill requires that when agencies submit new regulations to congress, they will also submit their cost-benefit analysis of the regulations. the amendment guarantees that each of those analyses will include a specific assessment of the jobs the regulations

create and the jobs the regulations destroy, distinguishing between private sector and private sector jobs. with that information, congress will be in a better position to determine whether to approve the rules, and the american people will be in a better position to hold congress accountable for its decisions. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: mr. chairman, i'd urge all of my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment. i think it's only right to require very costly and burdensome regulations being created by this administration's regulatory environment to actually show the taxpayers the cost-benefit of what the executive branch's decision is going to be on the taxpayers of this country. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to offer an amendment -- 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 114-230 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you mr. speaker. my amendment would accept from h.r. 427 all rules that the office of management and budget determines would result in net job creation. as with many other deregulatory bills we have considered this

congress, the proponents of h.r. 427 argue that it will grow the economy, create jobs and increase america's competitiveness internationally. but we cannot pretend that this politicized legislation is about economic growth or american prosperity. as i have noted during the consideration of each of the anti-regulatory bills that we have considered in the 114th congress there is simply no credible evidence in support of the majority's reintegration of quote job-killing regulation zero. the entire rhetoric that my republican colleagues repeated again and again since the passage of the reins act in 2011 have not changed in light of the changing facts on the ground. the latest report from the bureau of labor statistics shows that unemployment has

fallen to 5.3%. while there is more work to do to grow the economy and help our nation's middle class there have been 64 straight months of private sector job growth. that's 12.8 million private sector job created amidst a regulatory environment that is pro-worker pro-environment pro-public health and safety and pro-innovation. and to those who would brush aside these strong employment figures, the department of labor also reported last week that claims for unemployment benefits have dropped to the lowest levels in over 40 years, the lowest level since november of 1973. do these numbers mean that the major rules adopted during the obama administration have decreased unemployment, grown the economy or contributed to the drop in unemployment

benefit claims? while i would submit that regulations have a positive effect on sustainible growth, there is little correlation between regulations and the economy. don't just take my word for it. take the words of the san francisco and new york federal reserve banks, which found zero correlation between employment and regulation. take the word of bruce bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the reagan and george herbert walker bush administrations who strongly refuted the claims that regulations undermine job growth. explaining that republicans, quote, assert that barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

no hard evidence is offered for this claim. it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative ecochamber, end quote . take the word of "the washington post" which gave two pinocchios to industry estimates of the cost of regulations earlier this year. take the word of the nonpartisan congressional research service which debunked claims that regulations have a trillion-dollar cost to the economy. mr. chairman, we need real solutions to help real people, not yet another thinly vailed handout to large corporations and the economic elite. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose h.r. 427, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from

virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, the amendment carves out of the reins act' congressional approval procedures regulations that the genetically modified organism determines will lead to net job creation. the danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives to o.m.b. to manipulate its analysis of a job's impact. far too often, o.m.b. will be attempted to shade the analysis to skirt the congressional approval requirement. addition regulations -- destroy real existing jobs and creating new hope-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. . some environmental protection agency clean air act rules will shut down existing power plants. the e.p.a. and o.m.b. may attempt to justify that with

claims that more new green jobs will be created as a result. in the end that's another way in which the government picks the jobs winners and jobs losers. there is no guarantee all of the new green jobs will ever actually exist. the reins act is not intended to force any particular outcome. it does not choose between clean air and dirty air. it does not choose between new jobs and old jobs. instead, the reins act chooses between two ways of making laws. it chooses the way the framers intended in which accountability for laws with major economic impacts rests with the congress. elected representatives of the people. it rejects the way washington has operated for too long where there is no accountability because decisions are made by un-elected agency officials. the amendment would undermine that fundamental accountability and so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, to the extent that a regulation would or would not present a choice

between clean air and dirty air i think we can all in unison conclude that we would come down in favor of clean air. if the choice became whether or not a regulation would promote clean water or dirty water, then i'm sure that most americans would agree with me that we would want a regulation that would ensure clean water. clean drinking water. unfortunately, if the reins act passes the jobs that will be created by the regulations which would enforce the requirement that air and water be clean will not come to pass. so we would do without the jobs and we would have dirty water and dirty air. so i would submit that the -- my

colleagues on the other side run to the support of my amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman i urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill which would be badly undermined by this amendment which would remove from congress the ability to determine which regulations makes sense and which don't. which regulations exrort with the -- comport with the underlying law congress passed and which do not. that's the key to this legislation. it's the key to why members should oppose this amendment. i urge them to do so. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time having expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to. -- 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 gentleman from offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? miss caps: 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 number 114-230, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380 the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member posed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment is simple and straightforward. it would ensure that oil and gas pipelines safety rules and pipeline spill prevention or mitigation rules are not considered quote, major rules, quote, under this bill. by design the reins act would likely delay or stop virtually all future federal rule making. we could spend hours listening to some of the countless health and safety problems that this woil bill would cause and i

commend my colleagues for raising some of these issues in the other amendments being offered today and debated. but my amendment focuses on protecting oil and gas pipeline safety and spill mitigation rules from the needless and costly delays imposed by this bill. these rules are particularly important to me and my constituents in the wake of the recent oil spill in my district. on may 19, line 901 of the plains all american pipeline ruptured just north of santa barbara, california. and spewed over 100,000 gallons of crude oil on to the beach and surrounding areas. at least 20,000 gallons of the oil spilled into the pacific ocean and spread along nearly 100 miles of pristine california coastline. devastating local wildlife. covering our beaches in thick tar. closing valuable fisheries. one of the other tragedies of this bill is that it likely could have been prevented or at least minimized if the pipeline had been using state-of-the-art

automatic shut off and leak detection technologies. these systems are available and already in use on other pipelines in the area but this pipeline does not have these technologies because its federal regulator, the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration currently does not require the use of these safety systems. like many communities across the contry, the central coast of california that i represent has called for action. the good news is that congress on a bipartisan basis has listened and demanded action to improve pipeline safety rules. in 2011 we came together and unanimously passed the pipeline safety regulatory certainty and job creation act which required them to issue 42 new pipeline safety standards, yet four years later fimsa has yet to complete 166 these requirements, including the rules to strengthen standards on

automatic shutoff and leak detection systems. this unaccessible delay has not been lost on this congress. just two weeks ago we held a bipartisan hearing in the energy and commerce committee on the long overdue implementation of these pipeline safety sfands. -- standards, both republicans and democrats chided them for dragging their feet because we all agree these rules are long overdue and must be completed as soon as possible. i find it baffling now that just two weeks after this bipartisan hearing we find ourselves considering a bill that would delay these pipeline rules even further. let's be clear that's exactly what the reins act would do. my amendment would protect these important safety standards from the added layers of bureaucracy that the reins act would impose. so i hope that my colleagues will join me again today as they did two weeks ago in working to ensure that fimsa-is not further delayed in fulfilling their obligations by voting for this amendment. this amendment would simply ensure oil and gas pipeline

safety rules are not considered major rules under the reins act. it would not -- it would then not exempt these rules from the main reporting requirements, but would minimize the additional delays created by the bill. if this bill were to become law as written fimsa's pipeline safety rules would not take effect until both the house and senate affirmatively voted to approve them. but both the house and senate has already voted unanimously in 2011 to require fimsa to write these rules. going around and around in circles makes no sense. mr. chairman supporters of this bill claims that the reins act is all about more efficient and effective government, but how is it more efficient or effective to require congress to reconsider and reapprove rules it has already voted unanimously to establish? the simple truth is that the reins act is not about efficient or effective government, it's a partisan gimmick that will do nothing but gum up the works and needlessly delay important health and safety rules that our

constituents depend on. my amendment won't make this a good bill, and i intend to oppose final passage, but my amendment would help ensure the reins act would not delay the pipeline safety standards any more than they have been. this is something i hope we can agree on. i urge my colleagues to stop the delays and support my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition 1234 mr. goodlatte: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: the amendment seeks to carve out from the reins act's reforms regulations that concern natural gas or hazardous materials pipeline safety for the prevention of oil spills and their adverse impacts. we all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harms from pipeline spills, but there is no assurance that the amendment would guarantee the achievement of those goals. on the contrary, the amendment would shield from congressional accountability procedures regulations that actually

threaten to decrease safety. they will also would shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new ideologically driven regulations intended to impede americans' access to new sources of inexpensive clean and plentiful natural gas. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. this amendment clearly says that while the congress can and has voted to have pipeline accountability and safety measures regulated, but the congress doesn't care what those regulations are. the congress does care what the regulations are and that's why they should come back here so that the congress can confirm that the regulations written comport with the legislation already passed. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, as i stated earlier this amendment is straightforward and common sense. there is broad bipartisan agreement that stronger oil and gas pipeline safety standards

are long overdue. i hope very similar agreement that further delaying these safety rules puts communities like mine in california and hundreds of communities across the country at risk. my amendment would simply ensure that these safety rules are not subject to the needless burdensome delays created by the reins act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the reins act is intended to make sure that federal government regulations get it right, solve the problem intended to be solved by the congress anti-manner intended by the congress, and supporting this amendment would defeat that purpose. so i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to.

mrs. capps: could we please have a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: 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 number 114-2 po, offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380 the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and a member posed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: this amendment to h.r. 427 would exempt rules concerning public health or safety from the onerous requirements of this legislation. it's simply an acknowledgement when a rule is necessary to protect public health that it's beneficial and public interest that the rule be put into effect without unnecessary delay. if this legislation is enacted without this amendment, it will

create a regulatory environment that will make it nearly impossible for agencies to safeguard the public well-being. for instance the department of transportation implemented an economically significant rule for the implementation of positive train control systems on january 15, 2010. this safety feature is designed to correct operator errors, slowing or stopping a train to prevent train to train collisions, and overspeed derailments. investigators from the national transportation safety board has said this technology is necessary to prevent accidents like the derailment of an amtrak commuter train in philadelphia on may 12 of 2015 which killed seven people and injured 200 more. under the reins act this vital technology would require a joint congressional resolution with an unrealistic time line for implementation before being mandated. needlessly putting the lives of millions of americans who ride amtrak every year at risk. proponents of this legislation may argue that h.r. 427 contains

an emergency exemption which allows a major rule to temporarily take effect following an executive order stating that there is an imminent threat to public health and safety. however, as the positive train control system rule illustrates not every threat to the public welfare will manifest itself overnight and not every agency rule is implemented as reaction to a product recall or sudden tragedy. even when a threat is not imminent, the fundamental responsibility to protect the public health and well-being remains. this legislation would substantially hinder the ability of agencies to fulfill this obligation. placing americans at greater risk for the benefit of corporate interests. in its present form the coalition for sensible safeguards and alliance of more than 150 consumer, labor faith and other public interest groups has characterized the reins act as, quote, the most rad threat in generations to our government's ability to protect the public from harm, end quote. echoing this analysis, 83 of our nation's top administrative and

environmental law professors describe this legislation has quote, unnecessary to establish agency accountability and unwise as a matter of pub lech policy because it undercuts the implementation of laws intended to protect people and the environment, end quote. while my amendment will not cure all the flaws in this legislation, it will address one of the most glaring problems and plea serve the ability of agencies to protect public helft and safety. i can ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman from virginia voiced for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule pertaining to health or public safety. health and public safety regulation done properly serves important goals and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. but federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an immense part of total federal regulation. and has been the source of many of the most abusive

unnecessarily expensive and job and wage-destroying regulations. to remove these areas of regulation from the bill would be to severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower the crushing consumetive costs of federal regulation and increase the accountability of our regulatory system to the people. these include regulations such as the environmental protection agency's multibillion-dollar utility mack regulations. the supreme court recently invalidated those regulations, but not before the targets of the regulations had to spend multiple years worth of compliance costs. had the reins act been in place, congress could have refused to approve those regulations to begin with, saving billions of dollars in unnecessary costs. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island voiced. -- is recognized. mr. cicilline: i'd say in conclude that the amendment would -- conclusion that the amendment would protect the

public health and well-being and there are instances, as the example i just gave, where the failure to act will endanger the lives of americans. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, to improve a badly flawed piece of legislation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i urge support for the legislation and yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. goodlatte: on that 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 rhode island will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise to offer an amendment authored by my colleague congresswoman sheila jackson lee, who regrettably is unable to be with us today. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 114-230 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 30, the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this amendment improves h.r. 427 by exempting those regulations that are critical to protecting the health and safety of infants. more specifically, the jackson lee amendment provides a special rule pertaining to the safety of any product specifically designed to be used or consumed by a child under the age of 2 years. which includes cribs, car seats and infant formula. as a member of the house judiciary subcommittee on regulatory reform, commercial antitrust law, i'm very concerned about the reins act and the complications and delays to the rulemaking process it would create regarding regulations that would protect the health and safety of children. this legislation would amend the congressional review act to prohibit a major rule from going into effect unless congress enacts a joint

resolution of approval within 70 legislative days, otherwise the rule does not go into effect. effectively no regulations will ever be enacted because it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to move any proposed legislation through congress within 70 dales. moreover, subjecting agencies to additional reporting requirements and congressional review as mandated by h.r. 427 would not only be wasteful, it could be damaging or even deadly. especially when it comes to regulations designed to protect children and infants. for example, much like the version of the bill that we debated in previous sessions, the reins act would delay product safety rules affecting family products like toys, cribs and children's clothing. in particular, restriction it's put forth in h.r. 4 -- restrictions put forth in the bill could create further delays. safety caps on medicine flammable clothing and tipping furniture, just to name a few. notably, the u.s. consumer product safety commission

reports that a child dies every two weeks from furniture or tv's tipping over and injuries from falling furniture occur every 24 minutes. we cannot afford to put the lives and safety of infants, toddlers and children at risk while congress entangles any real possibility for immediate and preventive action. the reins act is strongly opposed by many individuals and organizations all across the country. including opposition by more than 450,000 members and supporters of the center for science and democracy as well as 83 academics in the fields ofed a misk and environmental law -- fields of administrative and environmental law and 150 labor groups repting the coalition for sensive safeguards. we should not hint -- hinder the democratic process and stimy agencies' ability to protect the safety and security of the american people. especially infants. at a minimum regulations promulgated to protect the safety of infants and children should not be subject toed the restrictions of h.r. 427.

i urge all members to support this amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek reck recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman voiced for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, the amendment seeks to carve out from the reins act reforms, regulations. child safety is a goal all members share. but to shield bureaucrats who write child safety regulations from accountability to congress is no way to guarantee child safety. the only thing that would -- that would guarantee is less careful decision making and more insulation of faceless bureaucrats from the public. congress needs a better mechanism to make sure that washington bureaucrats make the right decisions to protect child safety when we delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bad amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island

is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, no one is attempting to shield bureaucrats from anything. this amendment is designed to shield infants to protect children. and i urge my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, the elected representatives of the people are the best ones to be held accountable for the laws and regulations passed and adopted in this country including those that protect children. and this would turn back to a situation where unelected bureaucrats can take whatever time they want to, write whatever regulation they want to, and then that would take effect without the congress having to have the ability to say yes, that truly will protect children, or no, that will not protect children. we should have that responsibility. that's something that the american people expect from their elected representatives and for that reason i oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. 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. cicilline: mr. speaker, 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 rhode island will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 8 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk, made in order under the rule. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 114-230 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, this amendment would exempt any rule pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards from the new onerous approval process

created by the bill. in other words, my amendment would allow the nuclear regulatory commission, the n.r.c., to continue to issue rules under the current system, thereby making it easier to protect americans from nunle nuclear disaster -- nuclear disaster. today's bill in the name of so-called reform has new procedural hoops that agencies and departments must go through before regulations can be issued. including requiring a joint resolution of approval for every major rule. the result is simply to impede obstruct and delay the attempt of government to accomplish one of its most basic functions, to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. not surprisingly, groups who care about protecting public health, safety and the environment, such as the natural resources defense council, public citizen and the union of concerned scientists, oppose this bill. according to the coalition for sensible safeguards which represents a coalition of many such groups, this bill, quote, is nothing more than a backdoorway to gut enforcement of existing legislation and future safeguards that big money interests do not want.

it would force congress to refight its previous debates, wasting time and money and paralyzing vital agency work closed quote. americans should rightfully be scared that this bill will put their health and safety at risk. one example that highlights this fact is the subject of this amendment. nuclear power. there is some dangers of nuclear power, which were made all the more real by the nuclear disaster in japan four years ago. we all watched in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and resulting tsunami. that disaster then caused its own disaster. the meltdown of three reactors at the fuke nuclear power plant. that led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the creation of a 20 kilometer exclusion zone around the power plant, the displacement of 156,000 people. inside the evacuation zone, all farming has been abandoned. in 2011 virginia was struck by a relatively rare but strong earthquake felt up and down the eastern seash. it caused the nuclear -- seaboard. it caused a nuclear power plant

to go off line. a nuclear power plant, indian point, about which many of people have had concerns for years, lies less than 40 miles away from my new york city district. there are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius around the plant. the same radius used by the n.r.c. is the basis for the evacuation zone recommended after the fukushima disaster. indian point also sits near two earthquake fault lines and is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to experience core damage because of an earthquake. to keep my constituents, indeed all americans, safe, i'm offering this amendment today. because of the catastrophes that can result in disasters, prevention of meltdowns is the key. since fukushima, the n.r.c. has issued new rules designed to upgrade power plants to with stand severe events like earthquakes and to have enough backup power so as to avoid a meltdown for a significant length of time. the n.r.c. must have the ability and flexibility to

issue new regulations to safeguard the health and well-being of all americans. however, h.r. 427 is intentionally designed so new and vital regulations will never be put in place. we cannot permit the n.r.c. to never be able to create new regulations. therefore i urge you to support the nadler amendment, to exempt the nuclear regulatory commission from the onerous new requirements for rulemaking imposed by this bill. that way the n.r.c. would have the ability to safeguard public health and safety as it should. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: the amendment carves out the reins' act's congressional approval procedures all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety standards. reins act supporters believe in nuclear safety. we want to guarantee that regulatory decisions that pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made. but that is precisely why i

oppose the amendment. by its terms, the amendment shields from the reins act's congressional approval procedures not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor safety standards, but also regulations that would lower them. all major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards whether they raise or lower standards should fall within the reins act. that way agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety will know that congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect. that provides a powerful incentive for the agencies to write the best possible regulations. ones that congress can easily approve. it's a solution that everyone should support because it makes congress more accountable and assures agencies will write better rules. all americans will be safer for it and i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, how much time do i have?

the chair: the gentleman from new york has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york has four -- virginia has four minutes remaining. mr. nadler: thank you mr. chairman. this bill prohibits any major regulation from going into effect unless both the house and senate pass, and the president sign, a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days. if the president and the cofpk fail to approve the -- congress fail to approve the regulation within the time frame, it cannot take effect and a subsequent joint regulation for the same cannot be considered for the remainder of the congress. because of the unrealistic approval deadlines in the requirement that both houses approve each and every major rule, as well as the president this bill would effectively prevent the promulgation of many critical protections that ensure americans' health, safety and economic well-being. the proponents say they support regulation when it makes sense. but this is a vast government, it's a vast economy, it's a vast socioeconomic system. and to demand that congress pass in both houses within 70 days and the president sign, a resolution of approval for

every one of the thousands of regulations means most will never be considered. that's why this amendment, to say that at least where people's lives are at stake in large numbers, where safety regulations to prevent nuclear disasters, or to mitigate their effects are in question, it not be subject to the same restrictive requirements that this bill would put into place, which would say that most regulations would never get adequately considered. so in closing, i want to say that this regulation, this amendment, rather, is absolutely necessary if we want to make sure that the next time there's an earthquake, god forbid or some other disaster, or even just a power failure, that a nuclear reactor doesn't have a terrible situation and we don't get a nuclear meltdown and that if we do, regulations are in place to safeguard people's lives and health. i think if we're going to pass this terrible bill, the least

we can do is exempt nuclear safety from it. with that i urge all members to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: the facts speak for themselves of the during the course of the bomb, which i think most people would agree have been very aggressive at imposing new regulations upon our economy and on our society, it's averaged 81 a year. not thousands but 81 per year. so i think many of us would agree that some of those regulations impose burdens not intended by the underlying legislation won upon which those regulations are based and therefore this is a very manageable way to make sure that regulations don't kill jobs and crush our economy. i oppose the amendment for that reason and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed to. mr. nadler: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: with that resounding yes vote, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 114-230. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. pocan: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment numbered 10 printed in part b of house report number 114-230, offered by mr. pocan of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 380, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: thank you mr. speaker. on behalf of myself and colleague, ms. moore from wisconsin, i rise today to offer an amendment to prevent the spike in the could he pays that

veterans pay for prescription drugs as a result of this misguided bill. every year the department of veterans affairs publishes a rule to ensure that veterans enrolled in the v.a. health program don't see as much as a 37 1/2% increase in their prescription drug co-pays. in this bill, the reins act if it were signed into law it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible for the v.a. to publish this rule making before january 1 2016. let's face it, congress doesn't exactly have a great track record on acting fast. i used to say when i was in the wisconsin legislature, sometimes things move like a tortoise. in congress i explained they move more like an upside-down tortoise. under this bill, co-payments for approximately 2.4 million veterans would increase significantly causing economic hardship and health risks for many veterans struggling to make their ends meet. if this bill were to become law veterans with a service connected disability rating greater than 50% would see their

prescription drug co-pays increase more than 11 times what they were paying last year. veterans who were former prisoners of war or awarded a purple heart would see their co-pays go up nearly 38%. veterans who have been hit hardest economically after serving their country would see their rates spike 22%. we must ensure that those who bravely served our country don't see congress take money out of their pockets just to score political points. at this time when we still have many veterans struggling to find a job it's irresponsible for congress to make it more difficult for the men and women who served our country to pay more for the health care they deserve. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment carves out of the reins act congressional approval

procedures all regulations from the department of veterans affairs that concern the availability of affordable medication and effective health care management for veterans. affordable medication and effective health care management for veterans are goals every member of congress can support. but every member of congress also knows the department of veterans affairs' appalling recent incompetence and negligence in administering its programs. rather than diminish the department's accountability to congress for regulatory decisions concerning veterans' health care, we should increase the department's accountability. that is precisely what the reins act does. under the legislation the department will know that congress must approve its major regulations concerning affordable medication and effective health care management before they go into effect. that provides a powerful incentive for the department to write the best possible regulations, one that is congress can easily approve.

i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. pocan: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia, four minutes. mr. pocan: i agree with much of what the gentleman said. the only problem is we have had problems in the v.a., we need to take actions and are. including in wisconsin we had an action in a bipartisan way we have been working together on. the only thing worse could be the performance of congress. there is a reason why the public currently rates higher than congress cockroaches, head lies, traffic jams zombies, and even the band nickel back. clearly we do not have a performance record that shows if we pass this bill we can absolutely guarantee that a veteran won't be paying more a spike as much as 38% or 11 times what they are currently paying. i'm not going to bet on congress and i'm guessing the american public won't bet on congress. we have the ability with this amendment to at least say we are

going to make sure those who served our country won't pay more for their prescription drugs if we don't get our work done because they have seen that all too often. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. i do urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, what this amendment says is, because the department of veterans affairs is doing a remarkably bad job of providing timely health care to citizens, we should carve out that department's responsibility for providing medications and timely health care and exempt it from the accountability that congress, the elected representatives of the people, who are very responsive to the needs of veterans, would impose. so, with this, the congress could with the reins act instruct with the passage of legislation to help veterans say, you must report back

regulations within a certain time period, which the congress could then act upon in a timely fashion, assuring themselves that not only have the regulations been done quickly, but also that they are going to address the problems in an effective way that we have all identified with what's going on in the department of veterans affairs. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will simply preserve the bad system we have now for helping our veterans through a department of veterans affairs that is unaccountable and we should instead make them more accountable by passing the reins act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the amendment is not agreed . to the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: i 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 wisconsin will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek

recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question sont motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 427 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. same-r search the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 427 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the chair: senate 1482, an act to improve re-authorized provisions relating to the

application of the antitrust laws to the award of deep base educational aid. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-st. of rule 1rks the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. .

>> the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates, visits cities across the country. this weekend we're joined by comcast to learn more about the literary life and history of augusta, georgia. jimmy was the epitome of a hero, awarded the carnegie medal for heroism at the age of 19 and the medal of honor for his actions in world war ii. >> we are sitting here in the augusta museum of history and about 10 years ago, a decision was made to do a military display, a permanent military display, to honor jimmy. and when i did my research on the book, i went through over 9,000 carnegie medal recipients in the last 100 years and the 3,500 or so medal of honor

recipients since the civil war and he's the only person ever to have earned both awards. >> he would almost for sure say he did not deserve it. he might point out that somebody else who was more he had here -- heroic than he was. he was very humble. he never talked about the carnegie medal. when i interviewed people who knew him, when i did the book, people knew him well. i said, tell me, what about the carnegie medal? they didn't know anything about it. i know a lot of medal of honor recipients most of them will tell you, i didn't deserve this medal. it should have been given to somebody else. it's a piece of humility that we all can learn from. i think he would have been in that category. >> we also visit the boyhood home of our 28th president woodrow wilson. >> president wilson moved to augusta as a child when he was just a year old. lived in another house and then moved to this house when he was 3.

president wilson's very fist memory was in november of 1860, before he was 4 years old. he was standing on the front gate out in front of the house and two men came by in a hurry with very excited to ens of voice and they said -- tones of voice and they said, abraham lincoln was just elected president and there's going to be a war. so young tommy ran inside to ask his father what was war, what did that mean, why were they so excited. we think it's remarkable that his very first memory was about another president, abraham lincoln, and about another war, the civil war. and of course wilson would have to leave the country through world war i. >> see all of our programs from augusta saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv. on c-span3.

>> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings and news conferences bringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone facebook and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> so the house is back in about 15 minutes. they're going to do a series of votes on some amendments to this so-called reins act. until then, let's take a look at some of our discussion from this morning about the affordable care act. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with meghan mccarthy, editor-in-chief of morning consult your to talk about the health care law. the senate voted this past weekend to try to once again repeal the affordable care act.

what was this boat? what happened? guest: this was the first vote they have taken since the republicans won the chamber in january. it was a couple months longer than people anticipated when they won. it was largely symbolic. it fell obviously. a couple republicans were out since it was a sunday vote. it likely would have gotten 51 votes with everybody in. it created a lot of fireworks. host: let's listen to what the majority leader from kentucky had to say. mitch mcconnell, trying to convince senators to vote for it. >> higher costs, fewer choices and broken promises. this is a law that has failed repeatedly and that continues to hammer hard-working middle-class families. the vote we will take this afternoon represents a stark

choice for every senator. protect a president who likes a law with his name on it, or stand with the middle class by finally opening the way to truly affordable care. host: mitch mcconnell they're talking about trying to once again dismantle the affordable care act. any efforts to try again? guest: there were a lot of fireworks over the last day or two. senator mike lee and the hard-line conservative republicans accused mcconnell of using this as a tactic to just kind of placate that group of the base to vote for xm or the highway bill. so mike lee had a plan to try to use a procedural tactic to get the senate to vote once again on repealing the a for the character and having that the ruled germane to the highway bill.

so that is now kind of a wait and see situation. there is a lot of pressure from conservative groups to use reconciliation to repeal the affordable care act. it is something they could theoretically do since they hold the majority in the senate. president obama would likely veto any of those efforts. host: harry reid also came to the floor during sunday's debate in this discussion over what republicans were trying to do. here's what he had to say. >> today's vote is about reducing deficit and caving to special interests. it is about the republican and their leader desperately trying to appease their base. i am really appalled. and more than that, disappointed, by these continued partisan attempts to strip away insurance coverage for almost 20 million americans. congress passed the affordable care act. the president signed into law.

and the supreme court has put a stamp of approval on it, not once but twice. so is time for republicans to move on. not take another politically motivated vote. it is going nowhere. host: that was the democratic leader in the senate. how do house republicans feel? guest: there was a july 24 deadline for committees that have jurisdiction over health care to report their instructions. it was largely a symbolic deadline, but all of those committees did miss it. observers that i have talked to say that it is a sign that there is disagreement or there is not really a plan yet. not everyone has come around. about how exactly to use reconciliation to appeal the affordable care act -- repeal the affordable care act and if they should even be focusing on it considering the president has said he would veto that effort.

host: it has been a month since the supreme court ruled on king v. burwell. what has that meant for these efforts to repeal the portal care act? guest:-- the affordable care act. ? guest: there was a lot of waiting to see what the ruling was if the supreme court had found against the ministration. that would have meant a lot of activity on the hill. addressing the subsidies that would have gone away. it is kind of picking up the pieces now and starting over again and figuring out what is the best timing for lyrically to move some of these -- politically to move some of these efforts. host: what are people saying about these efforts in congress? what do americans want? the lawmakers now and those that are running to do about it?

guest: opinions have remained stagnant over the last five years. we did some pulling in june 2014 and in this month of this year and found that there is a slight uptick in people saying that they want congress to expand the law as opposed to repeal it. the largest group wants congress to make changes to the affordable care act to improve it. there is more of a positive move. host: expand in what way? guest: it is up to their interpretation in that regard. i think it is get insurance to more americans. the law has brought the uninsured rate down to its lowest amount since gallup has been tracking those numbers. host: we are talking with the

editor-in-chief of mourning consult, meghan mccarthy here to talk about the affordable care act. what are your thoughts on the law? how is it working for you? democrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. any future legal challenges? guest: there are some. the republicans in the house have sued the law. none have come to the level that king v. burwell got to. that was kind of a dark horse case for a while as well. it survived two major challenges. i would guess there is not going to be a third of that level. host: hhs for will will be on capitol hill testifying --

burwell will be on capitol hill testifying. what do you think lawmakers will be asking her? guest: i think the intense vitriol and politicking has died down in the past few months. i think this hearing will be a lot more about the programs that hhs has that fall under more education type things. there will still be difficult questions about insurance premiums and whether or not people are going to be able to afford the coverage they are getting now. host: we will have coverage today of the hearing. you can watch it on c-span.org with the hhs secretary before the house education and workforce committee. what is the next phase of the afford care act? -- affordable care act? guest: i think with king v.

burwell behind the administration, you might see more state exchanges become federal exchanges. it is pretty difficult for them technologically and financially to run a state-based exchange. that might be a trend that develops. i think the largest criticism that republicans have of the law is that the prices are fine now on the exchanges for people, especially because they are receiving subsidies, but in the next year or two or three, they are going to grow at a rate that people will be able to afford anymore. host: we will go to an independent in brooklyn. go ahead. caller: i think the affordable care act is good for a lot of people in this city, especially where there is a lot of poor people that can't afford expensive health care. is that your opinion too?

guest: i think there are definitely millions of americans that have received health care that they would not have been able to afford on the individual market before the affordable care act existed. i think there are some legitimate arguments to be made about whether or not those costs will remain affordable. a lot of that depends on how much the government can actually help subsidize the cost for lower income people. host: carol in south carolina, a democrat. good morning. caller: hi. our governor wouldn't take the expanded medicaid. i am wondering if that affected what people are quoted for individual insurance rates. i got quoted $451, which i cannot afford a month because my husband has parkinson's. he is on medicare and he still has to pay out-of-pocket. his dental is not covered by

medicare. there are a lot of costs with my husband. i care take him full-time to i do not work outside the home and i cannot afford health insurance. and i am a breast cancer survivor and haven't had a mammogram for two years. so i'm just wondering -- states that do not accept medicaid expansion, are they getting quoted the entire rates? guest: i'm sorry for all the struggles that you face with your health issues. yes. if your state has not expanded medicaid, it is possible that that is the reason why you are getting quoted such a high rate per month. medicaid expansion that a lot of states in the south have not agreed to take the federal money for -- basically captures people that are within a certain income range that you are going to miss out qualifying for subsidies on the exchanges. but can't qualify for medicaid under the original rules before

the affordable care act. host: mike in florida, a republican. good morning. caller: i have a few things to say. i think what's next for the affordable care act is we are going to elect a republican hopefully not donald trump. but we are going to elect a republican and they are going to totally repeal it and replace it with something effective. but me give you my story. i looked for health insurance a year or so before the affordable care act was enacted because of my concerns. i am just getting a little older. i'm 49. very good health, don't take any medication. it was going to cost me about $150 a month for a normal policy. i didn't have to pay for maternity because obviously i'm not a woman. after the affordable care act, it went up to $250.

which i have rejected because i am not going to spend $250 a month to subsidize the health care of -- adult onset diabetes and these things, a lot of things we could take care of ourselves. it just came out in the paper the other day about a week or two ago that florida is going to get 15% to 20% increases in their premiums. so it would be well over $300 now. or close. and this is for $9,000 deductibles. i mean it is insane. it is not at all affordable. so i personally will not take part in this health care system. i will wait. if i break my leg, i will go and pay cash. i will work them down to a number that i can work and the

doctor will take it because it is cash. host: all right. a lot of issues there. obamacare 2016 rates to rise just 4%. a 4% average rate increase for the second year in a row. guest: that obviously was a big surprise considering how much coverage there was of california really trying to push down the rates that insurance companies had presented to the exchange board there. one thing to consider with insurance rates is that they can be very regionally-based. one state having only a 4% increase does not mean other states will see the same numbers. another thing to keep in mind is that insurance rates have gone up by several percentage points every year and that was before the affordable care act was passed. host: california's rates are a

key barometer of how the a portal care act is working nationwide. the results indicate that industry giants like anthem and kaiser permanente are eager to compete for customers in the nation's biggest obamacare market. that is from the l.a. times. the caller also mentioned that if a republican wins the white house, they are going to get rid of the affordable care act. is that what the candidates are saying? guest: i think there is no republican out there who says that they wanted to keep the affordable care act. i think there are a lot of different ways they would probably have to think about that. there are millions of americans that have health insurance now that they didn't have before. and they are voters. those are people that are going to be upset. you might see the rhetoric shift and become a little more nuanced in this cycle. host: what about this tweet. how much better with the aca be if the gop had spent time they

spend to break or repeal it instead trying to improve it? guest: there actually have been a decent number of i partisan efforts to change the law. a lot of them are about doing certain them are about an doing certain things. medical device taxes are an example congress has voted on several times. there is a bipartisan effort to get rid of rules for smaller employers and where they get their insurance and what kind of requirements are on there. there have been small efforts that do not rise to the public's attention. health insurance rates and individual mandates. host: springfield, virginia. vince, independent. caller: i am all for affordable care, but it seems to be so inefficient. i do not like to to agree with

anyone republican or democrat. it seems like insurance rates have significantly rise because of it. i am wondering why that is. can it be more efficient so our rates are more sustainable? you quoted california, but that is difficult to believe, seeing what i have heard around here. from people's insurance rates. host: what have you heard? caller: that insurance rates are going through the roof like mine. host: meghan mccarthy? guest: i think republicans would make the argument that rates are definitely going up because of all of the rules that the affordable care act puts in place on what kind of insurance can be offered to people on exchanges. there is a lot more requirements plans have to hit. the central health benefits. a certain percentage of costs. democrats are supporters of the

law would say that benefits consumers. and plans offered cheaply, like the guy from california mentioned. $150 a month. was not really covering anyone. you get to the hospital and realize you have a bill with thousands of dollars. there are arguments to be made on both sides. that is part of the cost increase though. host: eric, independent caller from florida. caller: you made some point earlier about people who want to expand the act. you did not mention who those people were. i will make a guess but i imagine it is that people either getting their coverage paid for by somebody else or they are the people supplying it. i have a couple of issues i would like to bring up. a lady called from florida and

mention the governor was not going to accept the medicare expansion. looking at the details, the federal government has no money. we are trillions of dollars in the hole on the stuff we can find the books. something like 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liability and social security. you can see the numbers at the u.s. debt clock.org. are you aware how much we are in debt? guest: the increasing cost of health care is the next major focus after the affordable care act. the affordable care act gets people access to insurance but the cost of health care is a problem for the federal budget. it is one the biggest chunks of the pauline -- of the pie. there have been signs of the cost of medicare increasing at a decreasing rate. that is the next big fight for

democrats or republicans regardless of who was in the white house. host: and the caller was wondering about who wanted to expand it. when you look at the polls that morning consult did in june of 2014, that is the light green in the column. dark green is july this past month. these are the people who want to expand the law, delay the law. can you explain? guest: opinions on the affordable care act are stagnant. while these are small changes, it is interesting that it was happening on what was considered the most positive thing congress could do to the law, which is expanded. the caller asked pacific life who are those people. we did not break it down based on whether or not they were receiving insurance on the exchanges. but it did see an increase from democrats and republicans.

republicans want from 2% warning congress to expand the law to 7% over the course of the year. host: this is the first time for our viewers to talk to someone from morning consult. what is the website? guest: it is a media and polling organization. we bring together the best of policy and politics reporting with unprecedented access to public opinion polling. our team is out in the field with a 2000 person national voter poll every week. our audience right now are the people in washington that want to know what is happening on capitol hill whether it is an health or energy. finance or tech policy. what is happening on the campaign trail when it comes to members of the house and senate. we are also writing for people outside of washington who need to know what is happening on the hill for the industries they are

working in. whether it is an insurance company or oil company. we are aiming for both they d.c. crowd of people across america. host: when do you publish? guest: we have five e-mails in the morning and the topic areas i mentioned and a general one on congress where we round up the top news of the day in business and in washington, d.c. for those five areas. we collect news not just from what we produce every day but from any outlet out there. we remain more agnostic about who we include in our morning e-mails and some of their competitors. in addition to e-mails, we have individual enterprise reporting. we have reporters on the hill we ask members questions about the different topics of the day. host: is it free?

guest: everything is free. go to morningcounnsult.com to see our newspapers -- news updates and our polls. all of our stores are free. host: who is funding it? guest: we make our own money. we generate revenue from selling advertisements, mostly on the e-mails that go out and the morning. and sponsored polling. host: who owns it? what was the idea here? guest: our owner started this several years ago. he is a health policy expert. it was basically to round up the news. there was so much happening and health policy, it was hard to keep track of. so he started this morning e-mail that really grew in popularity answer against. i started reading it when i was

at health reporter and i relied on it every morning. that is one of the reasons i joined the company now. host: meghan mccarthy, editor in chief of morning consult to talk about health care issues. eduardo in boston. it morning. -- good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i want to talk about the -- i had done. i spoke to people who are on medicaid. medicaid, it has not been the patients. in 2003, they called 52

pharmacies were stealing for medicaid. i called medicaid to report two people. first was in a program in manhattan. they still from medicaid in my name. and bnsf charted who stole six months of medicaid in my name. i called medicaid to report them and they did not do nothing about it. but they had take away most of everything from us. host: any comments there about medicaid and what is being offered? guest: fraud in in the medicaid and medicare system. that is a big focus in the obama administration. a task force was set up that reported record numbers in cases they have won. as far as medicaid, thanks in

part to the affordable care act, it is one of the largest insurers in america. as it gets bigger, challenges will go with it. host: michigan, independent. you are next. caller: good morning. i am retired. over the last six years, i have seen my deductibles darn near doubled. i have a couple friends who have been able to get insurance recently, but like the gentleman called, he said i have insurance and he said it would be good if something catastrophic happens to us, but he says my deductible is $6,000. he says to use it on a normal basis, we need prescriptions or whatever, he says it is not helping me. i have talked to a lot of people

in this 427. will thgentleman from georg mr. wesoreland, kindy take he chair. the chair: the hoe is inhe comittee othe whole house on the state of the union fothe further considetion of h.r. 426 which th clerk wilrert by title. the chaira bill to meand chapter 8itle 5 of united states code to provide that rules of excutive brch shall have no force oeffe unless a joint resotioof approval is enacted intlaw.

the chair: when the coitteof the whole house rose earlier today, a request for recorded voton an amendment number 10 printein been p postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 114-230 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. young of iowa. amendment number 2 by mr. smith of missouri. amendment number 4 by mr. johnson of georgia. amendment number 5 mrs. capps of california. amendment number 6 by mr. p cicilline of rhode island. amendment number 7 by mr. cicilline of rhode island. amendment number 9 by mr. nadler of new york. and amendment number 10 by mr. pocan of wisconsin. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first

series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-230 by the gentleman from iowa, mr. young, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b of house report number 114-230, offered by mr. young of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 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.]