>> are we all set? in the balcony. going to take a few quick hotos. we're all set. thank you very much. congratulations to the new members of the c.b.c. >> next up here on c-span, we'll take you live to the u.s. house. they are gaveling in momentarily. on today's agenda, legislation dealing with fundraising for presidential libraries and making it easier for congress

to overturn federal regulations that were approved during president obama's last year in office. live coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you for the joy, excitement, and ceremony of yesterday, and the 115th evening -- when the 115th congress convened. it was a celebration on the ongoing american experiment of participatory democracy and the peaceful shifting of power. today begins the work of that congress when the difficulties facing our nation in some communities especially come into

focus. we ask again an abundance of your wisdom for the members of the people's house. may we be forever grateful for the blessings our nation enjoys and appropriately generous with what we have to help those among us who are in need. may all that is done this tai be for your greater honor and ory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute

speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize mr. jimmy burnson who has served as chairman of the brian county board of commissioners for the past 12 years. on december 31, 2016, he officially retired from serving on the board. beyond serving as chairman, he has dead cated and admirable a his life to public service. nearly 40 years ago he began serving on the city counsel council before serving four years as mayor. in 1989 he moved from garden city to brian county. in 2005, he ran and was elected chairman of the board of commissioners. his accomplishments on the board since that time are numerous. he worked to build a new administrative building for the county, hold meetings, and

other event. he managed to plan the infrastructure for the county which has grown 50% in size and he helped to undergrade the trails, parks, and recreation centers. mr. byrneson always put the community first and performed his duties in way that would make any constituent very proud. jimmy burnson, you will be greatly missed. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, yesterday just a few hours after they attempted to kill the independent office of congressional ethics and strip it for parts, republicans backed down in the space of public outrage. it seeks volumes the first things republicans attempted to do in the new congress was weaken ethical standards and they only changed course once their efforts were exposed to the public. this is not what the american people sent us here to do, but it seems that contrary to their

campaign rhetoric, republicans don't want to drain the swamp, they want to fill it up. this is wrong and it's critical that members of congress be accountable and adhere to the highest ethical standards. in the weeks ahead it's critical all of us hold the majority accountable to prevent them from going back to the days when thinly veiled bribes, kickbacks, and worse were commonplace in this town. we need more ethical reforms in this congress not less. that's why i have introduced the ethics act to require every member of congress to undergo the same annual ethics training that their staffs have to complete. that's why i'm asking members of both parties to demand better from our elected officials than what we saw over the last 24 hours. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday the first day of the 115th congress, the house of representatives elected paul davis ryan to serve as speaker

of the house. i have been grateful to serve with speaker ryan, a proven conservative, through my service in congress and could attest to his commitment to conservative values with innovative thoughtfulness. under speaker ryan's leadership, house republicans last year passed meaningful legislation, providing greater outreach services to veterans, reinforcing local control of education, ending the 40-year ban on crude oil exports, combating the opioid epidemic, passed the national defense authorization act, and enacted sweeping mental health reform. speaker ryan also launched a better way, a bold policy agenda that presents meaningful initiatives for restoring a confident america by presenting solutions to address poverty, grow our economy to create jobs, defend the constitution, improve health care by repealing the failing obamacare, reform of the tax code, and strengthening the military.

i was grateful to cast my vote for speaker ryan and i look forward to working with him and president-elect donald trump and vice president elect mike pence in the new congress to deliver policies of limited government and expanded freedom for american families. in conclusion god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i spent 10 years in my professional life working in health care both before, during, and after the affordable care act passed. so let me tell you what a republican repeal would mean t would mean raising prescription drug costs on illinois seniors by more than $1,000 every year. mrs. bustos: by remoping the medicare doughnut hole. returning to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against women by charging them more than men for basic care. it would mean telling

diabetics, survivors of a heart attack, or even babies with a birth defect that they aren't qualified for health care coverage because of their pre-existing condition. and it would mean denying cancer patients lifesaving care after they reached their lifetime limit on the insurancepolicy. republicans have talked about refeeling for almost seven years the affordable care act. but they have no plan for replacement. again and again we have heard that repealing obamacare will make america great again. well, i say it will make america sick again. please let's work together and don't undermine the health of millions of americans. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to drefment revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the anti-semitic united nations has struck a new low commanding that israel prohibit jews from

settling in the west bank. guess who was supportive of this absurd resolution and betrafle our closest ally? the united states. once again this administration is on the wrong side. it has alienated what few international friends we had. secretary of state john kerry arrogantly declared, quote, israel can either be jewic or democratic, it cannot be both. mr. speaker, let's think about that statement. the united nations mandates separating jews from palestinians in the west bank is segregation. mr. speaker, segregation is not democratic. united states and the u.n. have no legal business telling a sovereign nation where people should live or shouldn't live in that country. who in the world do we think we're? would we approve of the u.n. telling us that one race or ethnic group could not live in one region of the united states? absolutely not. thankfully this state

department will soon be clearing their desk at foggy bottom and good ridens. it's time for a new -- ridans. it's time for a new state that sports america's friends and not our enemies. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: residents in new york city had a special reason to celebrate as this new year began. the very first new subway in over 60 years and the largest subway in the country opened its doors and carried passengers at 12:00 noon on new year's day. this new line is expected to carry over 200,000 travelers a day. reduce commute time, reduce cost, efficiency, and boost small businesses. it's a project that has been on the books for over a century. and one that i fought for every single day that i have been in

congress. it's the gift that keeps on giving. it's already generated over 16,000 new jobs. has spurred over $840 million in good wages. and the regional plan says that it is responsible for over $2.5 billion in new economic activity. and they just opened their doors. let's work together and support other good, important infrastructure projects in our country. it's good for americans. it's good for america. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. emmer: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. emmer: mr. speaker, i rise today for the first time in the 115th congress to recognize the brave service men and women who tirelessly defend our great nation. every day our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices to protect the many

freedoms we enjoy both at home and abroad. they spend time away from their families and miss birthdays, anniversaries, and funeral, and they are frequently required to put themselves in harm's way to fight for this great nation. in particular, i'd like to recognize jason brawn who will be deploying to the middle east in the coming days. a minnesota resident, he's a member of the west metro fire rescue district and dedicated husband to my director of operations and scheduler. i want to thank jason, his wife, and all of the members of our armed forces and their families for their continued sacrifice and service to our country. their dedication and commitment to freedom is what makes this country great. and i wish all of our service members overseas a safe and speedy deployment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

miss wu: i rise today on behalf -- ms. chu: i rise today to talk about a man whose life was saved by the affordable care act. when he was just out of college, he was shocked when he was diagnosed with stage three hodgkin's lymphoma. he learned that this disease would end his young life if ignored or was actually easily treatable in the literal stages. no longer covered by his university, he applied to every type of health insurance he could, but he was denied every single time because of his pre-existing condition. he knew that through insurance coverage he could get the chemotherapy treatments that could save his life, but with each denial, he felt more and more desperate. then he learned about the pre-existing condition insurance plan under the affordable care act. it this plan made insurance accessible to anyone that had been denied due to a pre-existing condition. thankfully california was one of the states participating in

the program. finally, he got the chemotherapy he needed. he's one of the millions of americans given the promise of their lives back thanks to the affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today because we made a promise to the american people and we're going to keep it. obamacare is an unpopular and failed law collapsing under its own weight. polls have shown t rising premiums have proven t in nofse the voters said it loud and clear. it's time to repeal obamacare and replace it with more choices, lower cost, and reprotections for patients. already we're working to end this damaging law, take control away from federal bureaucrats, and give it back to the people of this country. one year ago we sent an obamacare repeal bill to the president's desk but not

surprisingly he vetoed it. in a few weeks this congress will send a repeal bill to the president's desk and this time we will have a president who will sign it. mr. speaker, health care decisions should not -- should be made by patients and their doctors and american families should have access to health insurance they can actually afford. that's why we will repeal obamacare and replace it with real reforms. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i'm congressman radge krishna moore think from illinois. i have the honor to represent the hardworking families of chicago's west and northwest suburbs. my constituents are finding it harder and harder to get wavement creating good-paying jobs is my number one job and growing and strengthening the middle class is my primary

mission. i believe working and middle class families must be able to earn a living wage, have quality health care, and educate their children well. these challenges are not incur soundable, but we must address them immediately. we need to make sure that working and middle class families can achieve economic security and i believe that if you work and play -- work hard and play by the rules, you and your children can and should succeed in america. i look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this chamber to make that a reality. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the entleman is recognized without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> it is with heavy heart i rise

to recognize two young men who gave their lives when their apache helicopter crashed in galveston bay, texas, in a training mission last week in my congressional district. my deepest sympathies to the families of lucas lowe, a resident of the 36th congressional district and army chief warrant officer dustin martinson of league city, texas. the heartbreaking loss of these two fine texas army national guard pilots, assigned to the first squadron, 149th attack reconnaissance battalion of the 36th infantry division has been felt throughout our soviet texas community. both men tragically leave behind a wife and family. chief warrant officer lucaslow's wife was also pregnant with twins due next month in february. as a former texas guardsman myself, my prayers remain with

all those who have been impacted by this terrible tragedy. as the u.s. congressman for district 36, it is my commitment and duty to the families to see that they get the support they need during this very difficult time. please keep these families in your thoughts and your prayers. may god bless these two soldiers, their families, and all who serve their country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i want to follow my colleague and neighbor in texas to regret the loss of our two national guardsmen from the 36th division. 36th division is a historic division, texas division, and to lose two of our soldiers is tragic. i'm on the floor today to talk about health care. the republican majority has take then first legislative step to make america sick again. the first step was to take away

health care for the tens of millions of americans including premium and increases in america. the second action lights the fuse on the dangerous legislative process that threatens to cut medicare, medicaid, and health tax credits that americans are benefits now from. there should be no reform without a replacement. there should be no reform without a replacement. because we may never have a replacement but we have millions of americans who will lose their health care coverage through the actions of this house. let's don't make america sick again. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> i rise to recognize little rock central high school's flag line and marching band for

participation in events marking the anniversary of pearl harbor in hawaii. central's flag line and marching band join several high school bands across the nation at the annual holiday parade to commemorate this historic moment. led by band director bryce evans, the trip lasted an entire week, giving our students the chance to have an unforgettable experience by meeting pearl harbor survivors an enjoying thanksgiving in hawaii. with their seemingly limitless enthusiasm and spirit, the central high school band continues to represent themselves with determination and dedication that make all arkansans proud. as a longtime friend and supporter of all things for central high, congratulations and i look forward to following the band's continued success. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. our constitution lists specific qualifications for the office we now hold. article 1, section 2 states that we must be at least 25 years old. we must have been a citizen for the past seven years. and we must live in the state we represent. mr. mccarthy: in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton and james madison wrote that under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description. whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession or religious faith. in a phrase, our body is to represent the american people in all of its opinions, complexities, and riches, and i believe we do.

for in a free nation such as ours new york single person can represent the people as a whole. in this body, i proudly work with colleagues on the left and the right. from every region and state. people who profess different faiths. have had different careers. and embody the experiences of the american people. no gathering in this nation is more like its people than in this house. we are joined together in representing not only our constituents, but our country. mr. speaker, we now have a high and honorable task set before us. first, we must take our practical principles that we have built up by the hard experiences of generations who come before us and we must apply them to a changing future. our mission is not to return to the past, nor to destroy it, but rather build upon it.

then we must erect the desires of the people -- direct the desires of they have people into action. millions of americans long ignored have rejected a future of limit and slow decline. we have heard their voices. but history will not judge us by how we hear, but how we act. the unemployment rate has steadily declined and trickled down to 4.9%. but what is more important is that our labor participation rate is only 62.7%. outside of the obama years that is the lowest labor participation rate since 1978. the reason our unemployment rate is dropping isn't because people are finding jobs. they have no prospects for stability or meaningful work. the american people have unrivaled talent and ability but it's not being used. if we are looking for a reason

behind the message that the american people sent us in november, this is a good place to start. for so many who have worked, things aren't much better. millions of americans, especially those in the heartland and struggling in the neighborhoods of our big cities aren't sharing in america's prosperity. in fact, the bottom half of the economic distribution in america hasn't felt any of the economic growth from the 1970's on. these people spend their whole lives working and never have the chance to move up. we've had the wisdom to listen to all of the american people. especially those being left behind. now let us have the courage to lead. let us have the courage to define the people's desires in law. as we go about our daily business, mr. speaker, we should remember not only that we have

great purpose, but we also have great power loaned to us directly from the american people. our republican ribberities we hold dear at this time are threatened by bureaucracy. subject to no authority but their own will. they cannot be controlled by the ople and are increasingly -- increasingly unrestrained by the people's representatives. this is not a partisan concern. congress has a duty to act as a united body in defense of our article 1 powers because unlike the bureaucracy, we are accountable to the people. this is why aye scheduled this house to tack until problem starting today, on a two-step approach. first as i have long said, structure dictates behavior. we need to fix the structure in washington that deprives the people of their power. second, we will repeal specific

regulations that are harmful to the american people. costing us time, money, and most importantly, jobs. to begin to get to the root of this problem, we will pass the rains act that will require congress to approve every major regulation produced by the administrative state. unlike the buerabblingcy -- bureaucracy if the people don't like what they see, they can vote us out of office. next week, we'll take a look at the regulatory accountability act which will require agencies to choose the least costly option available and will end judicial deference to agencies. which puts the american people at the disadvantage in the courtroom. but it's not just how rules are made. it's what rules are made to do. the president contends -- the president continues to

unilaterally impose regulation as his way out of the door. while we haven't yet determined what needs to be repealed first, i expect to start with swift action on at least the stream protection rule and methane emission standards, both of which are limits to our energy production this process won't be completed quickly but as we remove harmful regulations and change the structure of washington, draining the bureaucratic swamp that undermines the will of the people, we can rebuild trust between the people and the government again. and not only that, within the renewed and responsive structure of a truly representative government, we can restore that hope held by so many generations before, that hope that has the fined america's character since before our nation was founded. s the american dream that we and our children can find most

meaning, security, purpose, and success than those who have come before us. destroying that dream is the purpose of this body in the 115th congress. the american people expect this country to be great again. here and now, we will move us toward that greatness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yieldsing. for what purpose -- the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman seek reck thigs? -- recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the national liberal media continued to promote a divided america. this is largely a result of their chosen candidate not winning the presidential election. since 91% of the media's coverage of president-elect trump was negative, it's no surprise that they still see america in a negative light. but the media could play a much

more constructive role. they could report the good news that americans are more confident about the future than they have been in 20 years. they could report on president-elect trump's ability to attract individuals of competence and experience to his administration. they could report on his fresh approach and new ideas for, yes, making america great again. let's hope the media will put aside their bias and give the american people the facts untainted by personal animosity. if they do, our country will be better for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in solidarity and support for one of america's greatest friends and allies, but

one the obama administration has sadly abandoned in his last days in office, the state of israel. since september of 015 alone , in israel, 42 people have been killed in terrorist attacks and 6 o0 -- and 602 people including four palestinians have been injured. yet last night the united nations security council felt the need to condemn israel with a resolution the united states should have vetoed. as long as israel has been part of the u.n. it has been treated with little respect. there were more resolutions regarding israel at the u.n. than regarding syria, north korea, iran, south sudan and russia combined. that's an unacceptable way to treat the only peaceful, democratic state in the region. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to join together in sending a strong, bipartisan message this week to rebuke this misguided resolution so we can get backen a path to peaceful resolution of conflict in the middle east. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote of the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and adopt house joint resolution 3. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 3, joint resolution approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the members of the armed forces who served on active duty in support of operation desert storm or operation desert shield. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, and the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i

ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcclintock: i yield myself uch time as i may consume. mr. speaker, the house joint resolution 3 by congressman roe of tennessee authorizes the national desert storm war memorial association to consider sites along or near the national mall for a memorial to honor the members of the armed forces who served on active duty in support of operation desert storm or operation desert shield. under the commemorative works act, any memorial proposed to be located on federal land along or near the national mall must be approved by congress after the secretary of the interior determines that the proposed work is, quote, of pre-eminent historical and lasting significance to the united states. the secretary of interior has recommended that the desert storm war memorial association be authorized to consider sites

in area one for the memorial and this resolution would provide congress' approval of the secretary's recommendation. congress provided initial authorization for the desert storm and dezered shield memorial in 2014 and the memorial is to be funded solely by private donne nations. history will no doubt continue to debate the political decisions that stopped our forces before they reached baghdad, but it has already recorded and judged the effectiveness, the heroism, and the devotion of our armed forces and their commanders in the field who utterly vanquished the largest army in the middle east in just 100 hours and liberated the people of kuwait from a hideous and sadistic military operation. this memorial will do more than honor the 382 americans who gave their lives in the gulf war and ensure that they will not be forgotten. after all as lincoln said at gettysburg, the honor they earned on the battlefield

cannot be added to or detracted by many of us. and long after our words are forgotten, their deeds will be remembered and celebrated. but this monument will also remind future generations at home and abroad, friend and foe, of what american armed forces can do to rescue and protect the weak and vanquish and punish the guilty when competently commanded in the field and backed by the full resolve of the american people in a righteous cause. i urge adoption of the measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, following the invasion and occupation of kuwait by iraqi leader saddam hussein, the united states and the international community demanded the immediate withdrawal of iraqi forces under the threat of military action.

after saddam hussein defied calls to withdraw from kuwait, the united states along with a broad coalition of european, regional, and global allies began operation desert shield followed by operation desert storm. 100 hour land war which expelled the iraqi force from kuwait. approximately 700,000 members of the american farmed forces served as part of the operation desert storm and operation desert shield. of those 293 died in theater and 148 were killed in action. the 2015 national defense authorization act authorized the national desert storm and desert shield war memorial association to establish a memorial as a commemorative work on federal land in the district of columbia. this honors the members of the american armed forces who served and those who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our country. the joint resolution before us today approves the general

location of the memorial so that it is in close proximity to the national mall and other nationally significant war memorials as determined by the secretary of interior. this resolution is an opportunity for the country to come together and thank the service members who fought in the gulf, those whose lives have been forever changed by their experience in this war, and those who did not return. i support this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote yes. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the author of this measure, congressman phil roe of tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. mcclintock. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this very important procedural measure to sight the memorial to honor the men and women who served and died in operation desert storm and desert shield in area one of the national mall. on august 2, 1990, saddam

hussein invaded kuwait and less than 24 hours dominated nearly 30% of the world's oil supply, swiftly setting his sights on neighboring saudi arabia. recognizing saudi arabia's importance to the region, president george herbert walker bush launched operation desert storm and american combat forces to saudi arabia and ordered saddam hussein to remove iraqi troops from kuwait by january 15, 1991. with kuwait still occupied after the deadline passed, over half a million united states armed service members led coalition forces in the liberation of kuwait, operation desert storm. of the roughly 600,000 american troops who deployed in both operation dezered shield and desert storm, 294 died in theater of which 148 were killed in action. united states currently lack as national memorial dedicated to

the valor and sacrifices made by those members of our armed forces who fought honorably in operation desert shield and desert storm. mr. speaker, it's important to note that no federal funds will be spent to build this memorial. all funds will be raised privately by the national desert storm memorial association. we must honor the men and women who fought honorably and valiantly in support of these operations and memorialize those who gave a life to free another. the establishment of this memorial was authorized in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015, passing this resolution is simply the next step in the process for site selection. the secretary of interior has confirmed the historical value of the proposed memorial and deemed it worthy of being constructed in area one of washington, d.c., which includes the area around other monuments to great american heroism. in conclusion, mr. speaker, any of us in this congress

know many of the people who served in desert storm, desert shield. many personal friends of mine did and many paid the ultimate sacrifice. it's time now we honor those heroes of this country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i have no other speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. o -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i urge adoption of the measure and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass house joint resolution 3. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the joint resolution is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 71, the taxpayers right to know act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 71, a bill to provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the cost and performance of government programs in areas of duplication among them and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chesapeake bay visit, the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a very good bill brought to us the lead sponsor, mr. walberg of michigan, has done considerable work on this not only at this point, but in congresses past. we have co-sponsorship from a number of people on both sides of the aisle. five members within the oversight and government reform committee. but i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman, for your leadership on this as well. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the taxpayer right to know act.

this bill is a bipartisan and bicameral effort to provide more information about federal programs and their activities online. the american people deserve to know what their government does with their hard-earned dollars. the taxpayer right to know act will make it easier to evaluate federal government spending by requiring federal agencies to identify their programs, provide basic information like what their programs do, how they perform, and how much they cost. agencies must do a better job of managing their programs and identifying areas where taxpayer dollars are wasted. the government accountability office is tasked with reporting on duplication and continues to find new areas of duplication across the government. in six years g.a.o. has 637 fied 250 areas and

corrective actions in those areas to reduce fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, or address other opportunities for financial benefit. while only 41% of recommended corrective actions have been taken, g.a.o. estimates this progress will result in approximately $125 billion in financial benefits and savings over 15 years. while g.a.o.'s work has been invaluable, their ability to look comprehensively at the federal government is inherently limited because of the poor reporting by agencies about their activity. quite simply, mr. speaker, without better data, billions more will be lost. current law specifically, the government performance and results modernization act, requires agencies to report all their programs, their funding,

and their performance information to the office of management and budget. however, o.m.b.'s current inventory is incomplete and provides inconsistent information. this makes it more difficult and time consuming to identify areas of waste and inefishency. the taxpayers' right to know act establishes an congressional record -- across-the-board definition of program and requires the publication of detailed information on each federal program. this change will allow americans -- american taxpayers and federal watchdogs to better evaluate the effectiveness and utility of government programs. the taxpayer right to know act, mr. speaker, is an important and necessary step forward for the government in providing programs that are accountable, that are effective, and efficient. mr. speaker, i want to thank senator lankford for his work on the senate companion bill in the last congress which will be

reintroduced in future weeks. i also want to thank representative cooper of tennessee for his continued bipartisan support and co-sponsorship on this issue. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the taxpayers right to know act builds upon two existing laws that came through the oversight and government reform committee , the government performance and results modernization act of 2010, and the data act which was signed into law in 2014. the obama administration launched the performance.gov website to implement the gpra modendization act, and this bill would enhance the information available through

the website. the bill would require the office of management and budget to make available on a central website an inventory of all federal agency programs that have a budget authority of more than $1 million. want to thank mr. walberg for making changes in the bill before us today. it is important that we continue to work together to ensure the bill wiz work as intended. mr. speaker, i thank you very much and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. >> i'd like to yield such time heas may consume to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. costello: it is important that the federal government convey to taxpayers how it is spending their hard-earned money. that's why i rise today in support of h.r. 71, the taxpayers right to know act. for federal programs authorized to spend over $1 million this bipartisan bill would make more information available and accessible online. so taxpayers may see where their money is being spent and how the program is performing. for each federal program meeting these requirement the government need to make public several key pieces of information of interest to my constituents, including funding levels for the program, federal laws that authorize the program, regulations related to the program, the results of performance reviews that measure the program's effectiveness, and any overlap of the program with another federal program. simply put, this bill would help alleviate waste and prevent

taxpayer dollars from being spent on unnecessary, ineffective, or duplicative programs. i would like to thank congressman tim walberg and congressman jim cooper for their continued leadership on this legislation. this bill did pass the house without any objection last session and i would once again urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill again. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this egentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i have no further speakers so i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from utah is prepared. at this time, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i want to thank the good work from mr. walberg and mr. cooper, who also serves on the oversight and government reform committee. i thank mr. clay and certainly mr. cummings as well. in the 114th congress this bill by an to pass

overwhelming vote of 114-0. it's strictly a bipartisan, bicameral, it's a good bill. i want to thank senator lankford of oklahoma for his work on the senate side. we do hope that it will make it swiftly through the senate as well. the taxpayers right to know provides the public and congress with increased transparency about federal programs, including how much they cost and any benefits they provide. sounds like a good and worthy thing to do. it's passed a previous congress. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it here in the 115th congress. i'm glad it's one of the first things we're doing. with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 71? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended this ebill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid n the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7 , the presidential library donation reform act of 2017. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 73, a bill to amend title 44, united states code, to require information on contributors to presidential library fundraising organizations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. chaffetz: thank you. i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan who has championed this effort for quite a while. he's passionate about this, he's poured his heart and soul into it. i'd like to yield to him first, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: i thank the chairman for yielding me, and for his support of this legislation. this is a very simple, bipartisan legislation that would require organizers of presidential libraries to disclose the identity of donors and the amounts they give. wouldn't limit any donations but it simply would require disclosure. i introduced this legislation several congresses ago because i felt then and feel now that the public should be made aware of possible conflicts of interest that sitting presidents can have or may have while raising funds for their libraries. i want to first of all thank ranking member cummings for again co-sponsoring this very important legislation and making it bipartisan. the legislation is so bipartisan

that after the first time we passed the bill, in the past 392-3, it was taken over at my request and with my agreement by then-chairman waxman, who made it his bill and we passed it once again, and we passed it in the last congress by a simple voice vote. so there's a lot of support for this bill. mr. been introduced by carter and mr. coburn when he was in the senate and we need to get some more interest over there, i think we're going to be able to do that in this congress. mr. chairman, we do not know who these donors to the presidential libraries are or what interests they may have on any pending policy decisions that are to be made. i think that our government needs to operate in the open, not with secrecy. and then this legislation will apply to all future presidential libraries and mandate regardless of party that the names of the dor no -- donors and amounts

they contribute are disclosed. i would like to add that this legislation will apply to president trump's future presidential library this will require him to disclose more than any other president has ever had to disclose before. this will be an unprecedented disclosure and falls in line with his stated desire to drain the swamp. any sitting president has a great deal of power, funds should not be raised for a presidential library in their honor without some type of public disclosure. i decided to introduce this bill after news reports, after i read news reports surrounding presidential library disclosed that foreign governments from the middle east were making very large donations. in 2007, "the washington post" reported that president clinton's presidential library raised a substantial percentage of its library with foreign contributions. however this is not a partisan issue. aye introduced this and

supported this legislation under both democratic and republican presidents. the republican -- the presidential library donation reform act of 2017 would bring clarity to the process of planning and billing these presidential libraries. in 2013, sunlight foundation policy director daniel shulman endorsed an earlier version of this bill during a hearing in front of our house oversight and government reform committee and he said it, quote, would provide valuable information on special interests whose donations put them in close proximity with presidents. even richard cohen, the very liberal columnist for "the washington post" once said about this bill, but surely it would be anything from interesting to illustrative to just plain damning to see what names are on the list and for what amounts. our citizens have the right to know the details of these fundraising activities. this bill has been introduced by this ecenter for democracy,

center for responsive politics, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, often known as cry, common cause, blic citizen, the society of professal journalists and many others. "usa today" wrote a favorable editorial about this bill and it's been mentioned favorably in many publications across the years. i think it's a bill that everybody on both sides of the aisle can support. i yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support this very bipartisan legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves they feel gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to thank my longtime friend, representative duncan and ranking member cummings for sponsoring this bill. representative duncan first sponsored a bill to improve

presidential libraries 17 years ago. i hope we now can finally get this important legislation enacted. the presidential library donation reform act would make the process for building presidential libraries more transparent. presidential libraries have become increasingly more expensive as they have evolved into multipurpose centers. the george w. bush presidential center cost an estimated $250 million to build and president bush raised approximately $500 million for the building and an endowment for his library, museum, and institute. under current law, there is no requirement to disclose the identity of those who donate to a presidential library and a president while still in office. -- while still in office is able

to raise an unlimited amount of private donations. requiring the disclosures of donors would help prevent the trading of political favors in exchange for donations. this bill would require organizations that raise money to build presidential libraries to disclose the identify of any individual who donates more than $200. the national archives and records administration would then be required to post the donation information online. the bill would also create criminal penalties for individuals who report false information on donations and for fundraising organizations that omit donation information. and a group of, as was mentioned earlier a group of 15 good government organizations including crew and the sunlight foundation sent a letter urging the house to support this bill.

here's what they wrote in that quote. under the current opaque system, presidents raise funds privately to establish their presidential libraries. these efforts, which often begin long before they leave office, are unregulated and undisclosed, creating opportunities for and/or the appearance of influence peddling. improved transparency would help reduce the appearance of impropriety and help deter any inappropriate behavior. this bill was aproved without opposition by the committee on oversight and government reform an passed the house last year without opposition. i urge every member of this body to support this bill and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized.

mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. as highlighted by mr. clay and myself, there's good, bipartisan work that's gone on for far too long. this is time to pass this bill. i really do appreciate the good work mr. duncan of tennessee has done, ranking member mr. cummings of maryland. the presidential library donation reform act of 2017 is the type of good government, bipartisan legislation perfect to be one of the first bills to pass out of the 115th congress. last congress this legislation passed through the committee by regular order and passed the house of representatives without opposition. president franklin roosevelt established the first presidential library in 1939. since then, every former president since herbert hoover has a library dedicated for their presidential records. each of the 13 current libraries are managed and authorized, or operated, by the national archives and records

administration at an annual cost of roughly $75 million. while these facilities are operated at taxpayer expense, the construction of libraries is privately financed through donations. as the volumes of records increase, each president over the years has had to cover these construction costs. for example, when it opened in 2004, the clinton presidential library center, presidential center cost approximately $165 billion. nine years later, the george w. bush presidential center, which opened in 2013, cost about $250 million and the chicago tribune has reported that president obama's library might cost as much as $500 million. despite these escalating costs, there are no transparency requirements for presidential library fund raidsing organizations. here transparency is important and very much needed. the bill would require presidential library fundraising organizations to discloys to the national archives contributions in excess of $00 for any fiscal

quart for the searchable and sortable format. in turn, the national archives will post this data on line. disclosure requirements would end once control of the library facility is transferred to the national archives. this ensures compliance costs are minimal for both fundraising organizations and the national archives. the legislation is bipartisan, not intended to target any one individual, the presidential library donation reform act has passed the house four times, four times since 2002, with overwhelming support, with both democratic and republican majorities in place at the time. i'd like to make, again, a highlight and thank my colleague, mr. duncan, and i do appreciate his efforts on this. i do hope that the 115th congress, that the senate will see fit to pass this bill to the president's desk. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. i have no additional speakers,

but i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i have no additional speakers and just urge the body to adopt the legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from utah is the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i urge the passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 73. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 70, the federal advisory committee act amendments of 2017, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 70, a bill to

amend the federal advisory committee act to increase the transparency of federal advisory committees, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is advised there is no amended text at the esk. - no amendments -- there is no amended text at the desk. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, as a point of clarification, the bill text is not amended. so the proper -- the way i should say it we move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 70, the federal advisory committee act amendments of 2017, not as amended, as i said previously. the speaker pro tempore: with that clarification, pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the

gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chaffetz: i'd also like to thank the committee on ways and means for their work on this bill and ask unanimous consent to include committee exchanges of letters into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: thank you. this is a bill, the primary sponsor is actually mr. clay, so i'll reserve the balance of my time in order to allow mr. clay to speak first on this issue, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from missouri is recognized. clayton keller thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman for such time. mr. clay: thank you. let me begin by thanking the chairman for his understanding and his support of this

legislation. i certainly appreciate it, and i'm sure it will make the federal government run more efficiently. i rise in strong support of the federal advisory committee act amendments. i introduced this bill in previous congresses, and it passed the house last year without opposition. faca was originally enacted in 1972. it's intended to ensure that committees that provide advice to federal agencies and the president operate with transparency. advisory committees provide the government with recommendations on a wide range of issues. for example, the e.p.a. relies on the expertise of the clean air scientific advisory committee to provide technical advice on setting national air quality standards. the bill we are considering today would strengthen faca to

make federal advisory committees more transparent and make agencies more accountable in how they select and use these committees. agencies currently can avoid the requirements by faca by conducting advisory committee business through subcommittees. this bill makes it clear that faca applies to subcommittees as well as parent committees. the bill also clarifies that a committee set up by a contractor is subject to faca if it is formed under the direction of the president or its agency. under faca, agencies will be required to disclose how advisory members are chosen, whether they have financial conflicts of interest, if they are appointed to provide their own expertise and who they work for if they are representing a specific interest. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i hope the senate will take it

up quickly and send it to the president and thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i want to thank mr. clay for his good work on this. the federal advisory committee amendments act of 2017 was introduced by representative clay to help improve the governance of the federal advisory committees. this bill passed through committee by regular order and passed the house. congress acknowledged the merits of using advisory committees to acquire viewpoints for business, -- from business, academic and other interests when it passed the original act back in 1972. while not necessarily well-known, federal advisory committees are small bodies of people who provide advice, guidance and recommendation to federal policymakers on a wide range of topics. all told, in fiscal year 2015, there were roughly 1,000 federal advisory committees and they held roughly 7,400

meetings at a cost to the american taxpayers more than $369 million. now, this strikes me personally as an exceptionally high number. it's a large amount of money. we need to learn more about them, and i personally would help champion to reduce the number of overall federal advisory committees. we have some two million federal employees i think are highly capable and compensated to provide this good. it's good to get outside perspective, but at some point we have to look at the cost, size and scope of this as well. nevertheless, we got to make sure we're getting the most of these taxpayer dollars. some agencies believe the faca requirements are cumbersome and resource intensive. we can certainly streamline this. this reduces the ability of committees to focus on substantive issues in a timely fashion. both government agencies and -- the ate committees

bill works to address these problems and bring transparency to the federal advisory committees and the federal agency decisionmaking process. the bill provides needed transparency for how committee members are selected in several ways. first, the bill requires members to be selected without political affiliation. the bill also authorizes agency heads to require members to fully disclose any conflicts of interest. you wouldn't think that that would be common sense but something we actually need to put in this bill and understand that. in addition, the bill allows these individuals who regularly participate in committee meetings to be a member even if they are not allowed to vote. and this is done by increasing the independence of these committees and making sure if its advice, recommendations or judgment of the -- are judgment of the committee and not the agency. the bill also increases transparency by requiring each agency make available on their website the committee and its

activities. i urge our members to support this. it has widespread support and has in the oversight and government reform committee. i thank mr. clay, mr. connolly and others working on this issue. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to my colleague, iend and cohort on the oversight and government reform committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you. i thank my good friend, mr. clay, for his leadership on this very important piece of legislation. i also thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee for his leadership in moving this through. the federal advisory committee act amendments of 2017, i think, fall under the umbrella of good government, which the oversight and government reform committee at its best strives to promote in a bipartisan basis. i'm proud, as mr. clay indicated, to be an original

co-sponsor of the bill. we welcome consideration of the federal advisory committee act amendments which would improve the transparency and accountability of federal advisory committees often arcane, busyin stein parts of the government most -- busien stein parts of the government most can't get information to. his takes place and requires the potential conflicts of interest. faca, enacted in 1972, formalized the process of establishing, operating, overseeing and term flatting federal advisory committees. federal advisory committees provide a neck tism to gain knowledge on key policy matters. faca ensures federal advisory committees, however, are both transparent and accessible. faca was enacted in response to

concerns the federal advisory committees were becoming increasingly common but had ittle oversight or account ability. they listened to concerns over the lack of transparency and formalized the process to these advisory committees by establishing the secretariat within the general services administration to monitor the compliance with the new law. the intent of that law was to make federal advisory committees more accountable, more transparent, balanced and independent from the influence of special interests. is bill before us today, inspired by mr. lacy's leadership, will help strengthen the independence of those advisory committees by requiring members to be selected without regard to partisan affiliation. it is imperative that recommendations and guidance of the committees be provided free of political influence, pressure and intervention. the bill closes the loophole

that allows the subcommittees to operate outside the regulations of faca. it also improves the transparency of advisory committees by requiring agency heads to obtain conflict of interest disclosures from all committee members serving as individual experts. h.r. 2347 builds upon the accountability of the advisory committees explicitly by stating the committees established by contractors must comply with the law and that individuals who regularly attend and participate, if they are members -- are considered members regardless of their ability to vote. this bill also calls on the government accountability office to review and report regularly on agency compliance. i urge my colleagues -- one second -- 10 seconds more. mr. clay: i yield my colleague an additional 30 seconds. mr. connolly: i thank my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. connolly: the government reform committee

supported this. i ask for you to vote for this thoughtful and important piece of legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers but i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, we have no additional speakers, and just would urge the house to adopt this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a good piece of legislation. i, again, thank mr. clay and mr. connolly for their work on this and urge its passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 70. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 72, the g.a.o. access and oversight act of 2017. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 72, a bill to ensure the government accountability office has adequate access to information. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chaffetz: i'd like to thank the committee on ways and means for their work on the bill and ask unanimous consent to include the committee exchange of letters into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chaffetz: i thank their good work. i also thank the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, for his championing this through and

with that i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the original co-sponsor, mr. carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 72, the g.a.o. access and oversight act of 2017. the g.a.o. is one of the most important tools taxpayers and congress have to keep the federal government accountable. without complete information, the g.a.o. is limited in their ability to prevent waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement this bill clarifies that the g.a.o. has access to data, such as the directory of new hire, which will better equip them to audit federal programs on behalf of taxpayers. every day, g.a.o. handles the government's most sensive information in a responsible manner and provides trusted recommendations for improving the fwrovet's operations. the federal government reports $137 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2015,

the largest ever reported. total improper payments for the federal government exceeds $1 trillion this bill would increase the effect i haveness of g.a.o. to help reduce improper payments. dollars that could be used to better fund the programs that ultimately serve the people. this bill takes an important step forward by providing g.a.o. with an additional tool to ensure g.a.o.'s effectiveness in preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. provides g.a.o. valuable data to congress in doing our duty to oversee and evaluate the executive branch. to do its job effectively,

g.a.o. needs timely access to agency documents, materials, and other information. the bill before us would ensure g.a.o.'s access to the national directory of new hires. a valuable data baste of wage and employment information. - bayday ta base of wage and employment information. to help a -- this will assist g.a.o. in its evaluation of fraud work and its evaluation of programs in which eligibility is means testing. it would also provide g.a.o. with standing to pursue litigation is an entity in the executive branch improperly denies g.a.o. access to information. mr. speaker, similar bills have passed the house by wide margins in a number of previous congresses. these are needed reforms than --

reforms and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i rise today, i i'll nimous -- i -- reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i have no other speakers available, so i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 72, he g.a.o. access and oversight act of 2017. we have a duty tone sure taxpayer money is spent efficiently and effect i havely. one of the key ways we carry out this duty is the key watchdog of

the government accountability office. the g.a.o. has a proven record of excellence. we rely he on the group of professionals, thousands of people who pour their heart and soul into diving deep into organizations. as this bill states we need more openness and transparency. in the past six years alone, it has identified more than 200 areas of duplication, overlap, an fragmentation. they've made recommendations on 600 actions to make our government more effective and efficient. we need to listen to and understand them. we also, i would argue, have a duty and obligation to give them the tools and access they need to do their jobs even better. we must put g.a.o. in the best position possible to root out and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. today we have the opportunity to better arm the g.a.o. by clarifying its right to data to the access of new hires this

ensures federal program dollars go to the folks congress intended to receive them. doing so will help g.a.o. better investigate potential fraud incruding overextended disability insurance programs. the gmplet a.o.'s programs are hindered and taxpayer dollars are not as well protect. this bill has previously received overwhelming support in the house and it's time for us to finish the job, pass the bill to the senate and get it to the president's desk. on september 16, the house approved this important bill by a vote of 404 to 0. the language in this bill was also included in a bipartisan legislation approved unanimously by the full house in the 113th congress. again, it's time to send this bill to the president. i'd like to thank my colleagues, representative buddy carter in particular, for sponsoring this legislation and believing in it so whole heartedly. i'd also reich to thank the senator from nebraska for his efforts as the lead sponsor in

the united states senate on this effort as well. i urge passage of this by i have no addition am speaker and with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this egentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i have no additional speakers and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chayspets -- mr. chaffetz: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules an pass the bill h.r. 72. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h r. 69, the thoroughly investigating retaliation against whistleblowers act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titetholve bill. the clerk: h.r. 69 a bill to re-authorize the office of special council to -- counsel to amend title 5 of united states

code relating to the office of special counsel and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes this echair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include ex-trainouts material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: i yield to the prime sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from iowa mr. blum for his iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blum: i'm proud to speak on behalf of our legislation to re-authorize the office of special council for an additional five-year period to protect whistleblowers, federal employees who have the colonel to come forward to expose waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government and who are so important for oversight responsibilities here in ongress.

the office of special counsel performs many functions, chief among them, investigation of retaliation against whistle blowers. this is vitally important to the work we perform in the oversight committee, ensures greater accountability from the executive branch to congress. we are prud of the support this bipartisan bill has received from the whistleblower community and from those who care deeply about our efforts to perform effective oversight in our federal government. since the last authorization expired in 2007, there are a number of necessary reforms for the o.s.c. as the role of the office continues to grow and evolve. by enacting this legislation, we can ensure the office of special counsel will have the access to federal agency records that are absolutely necessary to perform their duty of protecting federal employees who have the courage to speak up about malpractice,

mismanagement and fraud in the federal government. i think we can all agree how unfortunate it is that some executive agencies continue to stonewall the office of special counsel in order to prevent them from investigating retaliatory actions against whistleblowers. even going so far as to invoke executive privilege when dealing with the o.s.c. commonsense tells us that this is unacceptable. if the office of special counsel isn't granted, the access to information it needs, there is no way it can properly conduct the duties authorized by congress. this bill also takes important steps to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the office of special counsel such as allows somplet c. to use a simplified process to redeuce duplicative complaints to better focus their limited resources on allegations and investigations and instituting a commonsense three-year statute of limitation -- limitations after which

document recovery and witness recollections can be difficult to obtain. mr. speaker, before concluding my remarks i'd like to specifically highlight the important work of the office of special counsel performed recently in their exposure of the mismanagement and abuse of our veteran at the department of veterans' affairs. two whistleblowers at the v.a. hospital in phoenix, arizona, recently came forward with information regarding inadequate mental health treatment and employee training at their facility. they were later retaliated against by management. o.s.c. was able to ensure that they received a new job at a nearby facility under different management. just last month, the v.a. issued a report in response to o.s.c.'s investigation, detailing the changes they had made to improve mental health care at that v.a. facility. incidents like these serve as a great reminder to the hard working taxpayers that are tired of the corruption in federal government. i would also like to note the

excellent work of the current special counsel carolyn lerner who is a breath of fresh air in this role. mr. speaker, the bottom line is, this committee, the oversight and government reform committee, needs more whistleblowers in the federal government, not less. the best way to ensure government employees come forward to expose waste, fraud, and abuse, is to ensure that they will be protected. this legislation will enable o.s.c. to do exactly that on behalf of all hard working american taxpayers and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: i rise in support of this bipartisan bill which re-authorized the office of special counsel. the o.s.c. serves as a safe

harbor for federal whistleblowers to disclose wrongdoing. o.s.c. also works to protect federal employees and aply cans for federal employment from prohibited personnel practices. the bill would make clear that o.s.c. is entitled to access agency information in its investigation. this bill would also allow o.s.c. to hold agencies more accountable for whistleblower retaliation. under this bill, if any agency substantiates a whistleblower disclosure from o.s.c. but fails to take a recommended corrective action, the agency must explain why it failed to take the action. this legislation would strengthen the tools available to o.s.c. for addressing and correcting retaliation and discrimination in the federal workplace. it is more important than ever

for the office of special council to have the tools it needs to protect the federal work force. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, i thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: let me note in the last congress, this house passed the committee in regular order and passed the house. the office of special counsel is tasked with protecting employees from prohibited personnel practices including retaliation on whistleblowers. whistleblowers help identify waste, fraud, and abuse at the federal level. information provided by these brave folks can influence legislation and influence the way we conduct ourselveses in government. as the agency tasked with protecting whistleblowers, the

o.s.c. is vital to making sure these people feel comfortable coming forward and are offered protections for doing so. from 2013 to 2015, their case cases reased from 25 open to 2,100 cases open. that coincided with investigation into the department of veterans affairs. cases at just the veterans administration this re-authorization will ensure the o.s.c. has adequate funding to can't protecting whistleblowers in the v.a. and other agencies as well. the majority of oh -- of the o.s.c. funding goes directly to hiring employees who work protecting whistleblowers. the bill also makes substancen't -- substantive improvements to ensure orment s.c. can carry out

effectively. it clarifies o.s.c.'s investigative procedures and making sure congress receives clear information on whistleblower reprisal throughout the froth. the agency has clear authority to access agency records. for its part, the o.s.c. must treat those records in the same man over confidentiality as the agency would. alleviating concerns about disclosure of sensitive information. the bill also gives o.s.c. needed flexibility to focus on claims that deserve our attention. it will allow the agency to terminate duplicative claims already being pursued by the merit system's protection board and claims that exceed statutory time frame. agencies will be required to submit reporting details what actions they take as a result of o.s.c. investigations, something in congress we should be paying attention to. this reporting provision -- provision requires agencies to admit any failure in holding

people accountable and gives congress much-needed transparaphernalialy. finally it codifies practices of disclosing to congress results and statistics, notifying -- codifying this transparency ensures the practice will continue and allows for easier oversight of activities. . i would urge our colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 69 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, at this time i yield three minutes to our colleague from virginia, the ranking member of the government ops. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: again, i thank my friend, mr. clay, for his leadership and for his kindness. i rise today in support of the oroughly investigating retaliation against

whistleblowers act. mr. blum, i appreciate his efforts to advance legislation that authorizes the okeds o.s.c. and protects whistleblowers in the federal government. an effort our government, the oversight and government reform committee, strives to promote when we are at our best on a bipartisan basis and i am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the bill. i welcome consideration of this bill which would reaffirm congress' commitment to whistleblowers. upholding the committee's commitment to protect whistleblowers and to support the oversight work of congress. that's congress at its best. with the enactment of the whistleblowers protection act of 1989, o.s.c. became an independent agency within the zev tiff branch. its -- executive branch. its mission is to protect federal employees from prohibitive personnel practices and especially reprisal from whiss -- whistleblowing.

it provides employees a mechanism to help whistleblowers. o.s.c. enforces employment rights under the uniform services employment and re-employment rights act of 1994 for federal who have served or serve in the uniform services. congress re-authorized the 2003 to 2007. o.s.c. has experienced significant growth in its caseload, since the last re-authorization. the caseload has increased, mr. speaker, by 58%. this bill re-authorizes the agency from 2016 through 2020 and makes several important changes to assist o.s.c. in carrying out its vital mission.

the bill codifies o.s.c.'s performance metrics in the annual reports to the congress and requires additional metrics to support congressional oversight of its effectiveness. st, that is to say, o.s.c.'s metrics. that was an aside, mr. speaker. this bill successfully passed out of committee on a i believe unanimous basis. i urge my colleagues to continue congress' long-standing tradition and support for oversight and accountability, whistleblower protection and transparency and vote in the affirmative for the thoroughly investigating retaliation against whistleblowers act. and with that i yield back. toip the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from missouri reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i have no additional speakers but i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: we have no additional speakers. we urge the body to adopt this legislation and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i urge passage of this bill, h.r. 69. we had four good champions led by mr. blum of iowa in our committee that have helped put this together. mr. meadows of north carolina, mr. connolly of virginia, mr. cummings, the ranking member out of maryland, all four have come together as original co-sponsors here in the 115th congress. i'd urge its passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 69. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 21. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask general leave to call up h.r. 21, the midnight rules relief act of 2017, for

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 21, a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide for an en bloc consideration and disapproval for midnight rules and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 5-b of house resolution 5, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: federal bureaucrats are continuously creating new and more complicated and costly burdens on hardworking americans in the form of unnecessarily burdensome regulations. clearly, some regulation is necessary to protect public safety, set general rules of the road and accomplish other important goals. however, despite the fact that these goals can often be accomplished with relatively simple guidance, washington

bureaucrats seem more determined than ever to create the most complicated puzzles they can imagine. regardless of the compliance cost for small businesses or the new and innovative products, entrepreneurs are forced to she willive in order to comply with these overly complicated regulations. bureaucrats also don't seem to care that american families face higher prices for goods and have fewer job opportunities when employers are unnecessarily forced to factor the wasteful cost of complying with overly burdensome regulations into their bottom lines. that is why at the very eginning of the 115th congress we are proor tiesing regulations -- prioritizing this. doing so we can make america more competitive again and put more americans back to work again. today, our specific focus is on reforming regulations that are hastily cobbled together in the waning weeks and months of an outgoing administration.

these regulations are particularly susceptible to abuse and thus have an even greater potential to undermine job opportunities, wages and american competitiveness. as the obama administration rushes to a close, americans' freedom and prosperity is increasingly threatened by one of the most abusive features of modern bureaucracy, midnight regulation. midnight regulation is one of the most vexing problems in washington's overreaching regulatory system. administration after administration, there is a spike in rulemaking activity during the last president's term, the last year of a president's term, particularly between election day and inauguration day. but even in the months before then. these successive waves of midnight regulation present deeply troubling issues. first and foremost, because outgoing administrations are no longer accountable to the voters, they are much more prone to issue midnight regulations that fly in the face of the electoral mandate

the voters just gave the new incoming administration. waves of midnight rules can also be very hard for congress or a new administration to check adequately. as a new congress and president begin their terms, both understandably must be focused on implementing the new priorities within the mandates the voters have given them. that doesn't always leave time to focus on cleaning up all of the last acts of the departing administration. in addition, the congressional review act currently allows congress to disapprove of regulations, including midnight regulations, only one at a time. a wave of midnight regulations can easily overwhelm congress' ability to use one rule at a time resolutions as an effective check. finally, it is well documented that the rush by outgoing administrations to impose midnight rules before the clock strikes 12:00 leads to more poorly analyzed rules with lower quality and lower benefits. the obama administration has

imposed more runaway regulation than any other in memory, and its midnight rulemaking period is no exception. when the house considered this legislation in the wake of last november's election, the administration had issued or planned to issue at least 180 midnight rules within the scope of this bill, including multiple billion-dollar rules and more than 20 major rules imposing $100 million or more in costs per year. in the intervening weeks, these figures have rapidly ballooned to 226 midnight rules issued or planned. during just the week of december 12, the administration issued 18 midnight regulations, imposing over $2 billion in new costs. but this is not a partisan issue. administrations of both parties have issued midnight rules in the past. the judiciary committee has been searching for an effective solution to this problem for some time and i applaud our colleague, mr. issa, for offering the midnight rules

relief act to respond to the need. this bill offers a simple and powerful means to stop the problem of abusive midnight rules, allowing congress to disapprove of any and all midnight regulations in one fell swoop by one en bloc disapproval resolution under the congressional review act. any outgoing administration understanding that it has this sort of damcallies hanging over its head will surely hesitate much more before abusing muent rules. further, once enabled -- midnight rules. further, one enabled midnight rules with one simple resolution, congress and succeeding administrations would be free to focus more of their energies on the voters' new priorities rather than the mess left by midnight rules. the relief offered by the bill, moreover, is highly flexible. no set number of regulations would have to be covered by a resolution. no category of regulation would have to be included in or excluded from a resolution.

on the contrary, any midnight pursuant to the rule disapproval resolution could be sweeping or narrow depending how many rules merted inclusion. finally, this offers a solution that is not intrusive on legitimate executive branch authority. an outgoing administration will have rulemaking activity up to the stroke of midnight on inauguration day. it then falls to congress to respond swiftly and surgically to the results to accept the good and excise the bad. this is truly a better way to govern. that is why the reform embodied in this bill is featured in speaker ryan's better way agenda. i thank mr. issa for his work on this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you very much. this is an unusual measure that's being brought forward under unusual circumstances. o begin with, this measure would, believe it or not, empower our legislature, federal legislature, to undo virtually every regulation submitted to the congress since mid june of last year through the end of 2016 last year. , d the bill accomplishes this -- regulation, by ending by authorizing congress to disapprove these rules through

a single joint resolution thereby depriving members to consider the merits of each individual regulation. this presents a number of problems. as the administration has -- with a veto of an identical bill that was considered last november, the gislation would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying some regulatory

principles to protect public health and safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society. this, in my view, my colleagues, trying to l way of legislate and for those concerned about the continued improvement of clean air and clean water, we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill. and i urge my colleagues to join with us because there hasn't been any deliberative process on the bill recently.

t's amazing to me that we have such opposition to the bill that it would be overwhelming to put n the over 150 labor organizations, consumer organizations, environmental organizations, and others who have openly asked us to oppose this bill. now, that isn't enough, we have the business community itself. in opposition. the american sustainable business counsel, which represents over 200,000 a partial and i have list of them that also oppose

this measure, and it's one of the rare instances in which i have brought to the floor opposed by hat is both labor and by business as well. of an a little bit insult that this bill is being considered on top of that under a closed rule. there can be no amendments to this measure. of surprise tate that on the second day of a new congress we would come forward with a measure that could potentially jeopardize a special

, a public health and safety in o many different ways. i think that the -- the opposition to this measure is so verwhelming that i'm surprised that without hearings, without opportunity for amendment, we are now considering a measure that has this much opposition. and i ask unanimous consent to include a letter from consumer reports dated january 3. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. conyers: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is ecognized.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: i rise in support of release act. ules ecent rules -- relief act. this act would provide congress with a way to dismantle the bumpeds imposed over the last eight years. as the chairman of the subcommittee on regulatory reform dedicated considerable time over the past two years to closely monitoring the growth of the administrative state. the estimated regulatory cost across all years the obama administration are staggering.

however, the regulatory onslaught in its final year alone disastrous, shows that the amage already done and the greater impact will fall on our economy. in 2016, 401 regulations were finalized. total compliance cost for this period exceeds $164 billion and amounts to nearly 121 million paperwork hours. 401 regulations and $164 billion. this is only during the final year of the obama administration. it's no wonder that the american people sought a new, more promising direction for our country. finally, the congress has an opportunity to act, protect the american people, and repeal many of these crushing regulations. for us in congress, we cannot forget what these numbers represent.

for my constituents, around for americans across the country -- and for americans across the country, the billions of dollars in cost imposed on the economy represent jobs lost, routine bills that cannot be paid, and the american dream slipping from their grasp. the true story of this regulatory onslaught is told by workers at shuttered stores, factories, and power plants across the country. their concerns and fears are ours. as this current administration exits, we must remain vigilant to last ditch efforts at crippling our economy. on top of those in recent months a number of new regulations may still be finalized in a hurried, nontransparent fashion. the american people are concerned that our current regulatory process ignores the balancing of costs and benefits and the regulatory impact on their lives.

from what we have seen over the past eight years, it is clear that they should be. starting this week, congress has an opportunity to reasevert its constitutional authority and act for all americans. midnight rules releaf act is a well advised measure that gives congress the ability to quickly examine and eliminate the mass of regulations promulgated in recent months. this has been done by both republican and democrat administrations. i urge all my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize my senior colleague from new york, jerry nadler of new york, to speak on the measure before us now for three

minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 21, the midnight rules releaf act. this irresponsible legislation would enable congress to wipe out hundreds or even thousands of regulations enacted during the final year of a president's term in office. in one fell swept -- in one fell swoop with little examination, no deliberation, and little regard to their impact on health and safety. members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern in recent years over rules adopted in a presidential transition period. typically the last 60 to 90 days of a president's term. but this legislation differs greatly from previous legislation that i and others have introduced in the past to deal with this problem. for example, the midnight rule act which i introduced in the 110th and 111th congress would have merely delayed the implementation of rules submitted to congress within the

final 90 days of a president's term with appropriate exceptions for imminent threat to health or safety, enforcement of criminal laws, implementation of a trade agreement and national security this proposal was rea response to concerns with last-minute rule making under the george w. bush administration which was roundly criticized at the time for allowing insufficient time for public comment, ignoring public comments and otherwise departing from accepted rule making practices. my bill would have given an incoming president 90 days to determine if any rules issued in the waning days of the previous administration should not go form. it would have aloud legitimate regulatory reform to proceed on schedule while putting the power to overturn new rules in the hands of the legislation. the legislation before us today a s much further and creates way to rerace the ending months of a president's -- outgoing

president's agenda. they can have a disapproval resolution that must be signed by the president this would allow the congress to package disapproval resolutions together and eliminate dozens, hundreds, thousands of regulations all at once with little debate over the merits of any individual rule. under the c.r.a., agencies would be prevented from proposing similar rules ever again, absent explicit congressional authorization. you'd have a rule terminated with no debate because it's one of a thousand rules, done away with in one resolution and you can't even look at it again. the republican majority is waging an all-out assault on the regulatory process. trying to add hurdle after hurdle on the ability to issue regulations that protect public health and safety. not content to grind the geefers rule making to a halt, they want to eliminate wholesale those regulations that have gone through the exhaustive rule making process. a process that often takes many years to complete.

even more concerning, this bill would apply to rules issued in the last 60 legislative days of a president's temple. not calendar days, but legislative days. given how little we worked last year this would mean that any regulation issued by the obama administration stretching back to june 13 of 2016 -- can i have an additional minute? mr. conyer spks -- mr. conyers: an additional minute is granted to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. nadler: this means any regulation stretching back to june 13, 2016, could be canceled in one sweeping motion with hardly any consideration given to the merits of any individual regulation. article 2 prvidse that a president serves a four-year term but the republicans believe this doesn't apply to president obama. somehow when he was re-elected by a broad majority in 2012 he was given on a -- only a three-year term. the senate refused to consider a supreme court nominee and under this bill his entire regulatory

ageneral ta could be undone in an instant. while i'm sympathetic to the need for an incoming administration to review the actions of an outgoing administration, this bill goes much further, allowing a rushed and partisan process that could undermine critical health and safety administrations. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: floor debate is for people in the room and people watching, many of the new members who have not yet voted on substantive legislation. i reach out with a little piece of history a large piece of history, perhaps, for freshmen of both parties. first of all this legislation is bipartisan. sponsored by both republicans and democrats. second of all, when mr. conyers

and i, mr. nadler and i, were 16 years younger in march of 2001, was the last and only time that the underlying law allowed for a regulation to be repealed. it was commonly called ergonomics. it was repealed. i had the honor of voting for that as a freshman. since that time, in spite of the many regulations that some people don't like in one party or another, we have not seen fit to have a joint resolution repeal a regulation. so let's talk about what it takes to do that. it takes both houses of the congress and the president of the united states to repeal a regulation created by a bureaucrat. or many bureaucrats. a regulation that may or may not be consistent with the law passed by this body, by the senate, and by a president in this or a previous congress.

again, for the freshmen, we are the party -- i'm sorry, we are the body that creates laws. we do so through a complex and difficult procedure. we pass it out of the house or senate. we then pass it out of the other body. the president, we or she signs it, it then still is subject to court challenge. now let's go through the regulatory process. proposed by a bureaucrat. given a period of time in which dissenters may be 100% and still it becomes law if this body does not act. so, now that gives you a little feel for the underlying law. used once on a bipartisan basis to take back an unpopular and a law -- a regulation that's never been resubmitted under both eight years of a republican and eight years of a democrat in the white house. and i repeat, the regulation that was previously recalled

err that's not been done by two presidents. w, let's talk about the bill before us today. the house is a body when it wants to can move quickly and a senate is a body that seemingly moves quickly only in recess. the fact is that the senate takes a long time, and we have many regulations that may or may not be considered now or in the future. all this legislation does is allow for us to dispose of one or more regulations in an expedited fashion in this body and have it seen in the same form in the senate. nothing more than that. doesn't change the underlying law. doesn't change the fact that the house, the senate and a president must concur on taking back what is essentially a law -- that's what a regulation is -- created by bureaucrats not

elected by any of us. so let's keep it as simple as that. for the freshmen of either party, when you go to make a vote on this, remember we're not changing the underlying law. only one regulation under the underlying law has ever been repealed and it was bipartisan in both the house and the senate when it was repealed. it's been 16 years and the few that will likely be considered under this act and the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few of regulations that are believed to be unnecessary and for which the house, the senate and the president concur. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure now to yield to a distinguished member of the judiciary committee from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is

recognized for five minutes. r. johnson: thank you, mr. ranking member and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to oppose the passage of the so-called midnight rules relief act of 2017, h.r. 21, and let's not get it twisted, ladies and gentlemen. this is a mundane area that we're in, administrative review processes and how we're going to deal with federal relations coming out of agencies. it's a mundane topic but it has real-world implication. is he bottom line is this not a jobs bill. the american people sent congress here to work on jobs, to work on economic security for americans. and the first item of business out of this brand new congress is to gut the house office of

ethics. now, why would they want to do that? it was because they liked the idea of the fox guarding the hen house. they wanted to put themselves in control of the hen house once again, and the american people called them on it and so they had to withdraw it. so what did they do? today they come back with not a jobs bill but a regulatory bill, an anti-regulatory bill, something that protects the health, safety and welfare and well-being of americans, little ones, elderly, workers, people who -- consumers. they want to gut regulations. now, what regulations will they gut? and they will tell you, by the way, gutting regulations helps to enhance job creation, but nothing can be further from the

truth when you consider that under the last eight years of president obama where we've had regulatory regimes established under the affordable care act and also dodd-frank, we've -- 15.6 million new jobs, over 81 straight months of private sector job growth. unemployment is now approaching 4%, which is basically full employment. and wages are going up for americans. and so despite the affordable care act and dodd-frank, you got americans that are prospering. and what do the republicans want to do? they try to trick you into believing that they're going to create more jobs by removing regulations. what regulations is it that

they want to do away with? it's the affordable care act and dodd-frank. so they want to reward their campaign contributors, wall street fat cats with this legislation that will enable them to create conditions that will be similar to the ones that president obama inherited when he walked into the presidency eight years ago and you fail to remember how bleak and bad it was, the economy. the economy was in the tank. president obama brought it back. dodd-frank brought it back, and millions, 20 million more americans now have health insurance than they had back then. and the cost of premiums for working people who had insurance through their jobs, the rate of increase has gone to the lowest level over the

last 50-plus years. that's real benefits. and so what the republicans want to do, they said they're going to repeal and replace obamacare. they don't have anything to replace it with. they just simply wrant to repeal it -- want to repeal it, and that's the regulations they seek to get at with this bill, h.r. 21, midnight rules relief act of 2017. bring the attempt to standard of living that americans have come to enjoy to a halt. it's going to impact negatively our ability to be secure in our personal finances. new data from the american community survey indicates that the number of uninsured americans continues to decline

every year. what happens when our rural hospitals close and when all the people from throughout the state have to converge on the emergency rooms of the urban hospitals and its uncompensated care? who pays for it? you pay for it. so ladies and gentlemen, let's not get this legislation twisted. this is an attack on your ideas, and i ask that my colleagues -- mr. issa: i ask the gentleman have one minute on my time. mr. johnson: vote against this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i won't be long. there's nothing mundane about what we're doing here. every day in america congress passes a law, maybe, but every working day in america the bureaucracy passes regulations. the fact is the american people

know that the so-called regulatory state that has developed in the last half century means whether congress is in session or not, laws are eing created, new rules, working people in their companies, will have to figure out what new hurdle they have to jump over just to earn a living. that's what we're talking about here is that at least when those are grossly exceeded under the underlying law and intention of congress, congress, the house, the senate, in concert with the president, may in fact use the same tool, essentials the making of law, in this case, to rescind a law. i want to speak to the younger members who don't know the history of this. all we're talking about here in this act is in fact a law created to take away a regulation. what we're going to vote on

will allow for one, two, half a dozen regulations, if there were that many, that we think are wrong, through our normal lawmaking process in many ways, to be rescinded. the house has to vote a majority. the senate has to vote a majority, and the president has to sign it. there really isn't a whole lot of difference between that and any other legislative business that we do here. now, i've worked with john conyers both as a minority member and as my chairman. he's a good man. in this case i believe if you look more broadly at the question of congress' responsibility to review laws made outside of this body that he would support me. notwithstanding not getting his support in this case, we do have both republicans and democrats on this bill. i expect on the vote in the house and senate it will be bipartisan, and any piece of

regulatory law that would come before this body and the senate i am confident would have bipartisan support in order to rescind a bad regulation. so i think for those who are concerned about the regulations somehow running amuck, no regulation will be rescinded under this law any different than any normal piece of legislation passed out of the house and the senate and signed by the president. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chair, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: and i want to thank the distinguished for eman from california

pointing out how innocent this easure is. and i am astounded by his feeling that regulations shouldn't be examined one by one. under this measure 61 regulations could be considered en bloc. to me just trying to put together two regulations would revoke them would be very, very hard to handle. what we're talking about here is a bill that would provide special interests with yet

another opportunity to block critical, life-saving regulations. had t to say, i've never so much opposition to a bill before. o my attention 150 environmental organizations, consumer organizations and labor organizations have urged the mbers of this bill to oppose h.r. 21. it's incredible. then, not only are workers and consumers against this measure as well as environmentalists, business people are against it like l, and so i feel

there's some missing part to this thing. the american sustainible business council has over 200,000 businesses. o here is labor and commerce combined urging congress not to do this on the second day of a new congress with all the .hallenges that are before us he says it wouldn't create any problems. it would be ok to put one or two or three or five or 20 or . or 40 or 50 or 60 this is incredible and it's not that we're working so hard that we don't have time to examine

each one on the particular basis. but can you imagine this ngress trying to block regulations which would be offered in one bill that could be over 60 different regulations? i mean, it's unthinkable. . t's not very practical at all. when we talk about meat labeling requirements regulations, and then another ragraph or another section standard for school lunch nutrition, they would be combined.

and my friend from california would say, well, that's no problem. we'll take them separately, but they'll all come in the same package. all of anted to examine these things individually, we could have an instance where the whole congress could be consumed for weeks or months trying to figure out it why these uld block all of important and sensible safeguards. business and labor are joined with us. and to me it's beyond comprehension for us to be concerned about not taking them

p one at a time. this is worse than a conservative point of which i haven't found myself often agreeing with, but to say let's have unlimited blocking these provisions, all into one, is beyond my comprehension. to ld like now to yield the gentleman from tennessee, distinguished member of our committee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. ranking member, and chairman in the past. my chairman.

mr. speaker, this bill has come up over many years when i served on this subcommittee and was rahm r78 and -- ranking member and the chair at one time. mr. issa suggested it might only be six or seven regulations. if that was the case they could take them individually and there is a process where regulations can be brought before the house in the congressional review act and studied each one individually and the house could overrule them. i can't fathom that they are bringing this bill for just six regulations which they could do individually. but even then that's wrong to put them all together. we know what's going to happen, they are going to pass. and they are going to pass the house. whether they pass the senate is another issue. these are not midnight regulations. these are regulations go back to last june. so the term midnight regulations is a misnomer.

and to call to say these are just decisions made by bureaucrats, you think bureaucrats were something out of a medical dictionary that was highly contagious. bureaucrats could also be lled experts, specialists, dedicated government officials. they are people who study these issues to be implemented need to be fine-tuned to fit into the society, sometimes to protect consumers, sometimes to protect commerce. and it takes years and years and years often for these regulations to take effect. ome of them protect animals. there was a majority, a great majority of this house was in favor of a bill to protect walking horses, but it didn't get a vote because there were some people in this house that were against it and against it

so much that they worked to get one of the finest members i have served with, ed whitfield, out of this house. that was despicable. and i expect that same power that might have had that effect to bring that type of regulation up to be nullified, and i would fear that and i would find it wrong in the spirit of ed whitfield and fairness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. it the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i like ed whitfield a lot. a lot of us d he was great guy. it was wrong what happened the way he was forced out. because the majority of this house wanted to vote on that and it could be put in this regulation and it would go. to -- tobacco regulations, toys, protections for children, all potentially in jeopardy. as well as other regulations protecting four-legged friends. i kimm imagine when this comes

up and -- i can imagine when this comes up and decision is made which bills to put into this omnibus bill, you are going to have lots of lobbyists coming and wanting the bills that affect them adversely, their industries put in t. and you're going to have fundraiser s around it. it will be a fundraising trough for the republicans to use and bidding basically on who wants to have their regulation put in our bill and have it nullified. the nullification act back in the 1830's with john cal hewn are back. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. it the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleague from tennessee has been a good friend on many

issues, and i know he's passionate about regulations and laws that he'd like to have passed and so am i. all of us in congress have seen the it's extremely easy, longer you're here the easier it is to see, it's extremely easy to stop something here. the same is true about 61 or so regulations. any combining of regulations unless they are overwhelmingly disapproved, actually makes them harder to pass. we're not going to put 61 pieces of legislation, each of which has at least one or two or three or a dozen republicans who developmently owe -- veehemently oppose that regulation. it's only the worst of the worst that will be stayed through this process and then re-evaluated by the new administration. i will mention, though, for my colleagues on the other side of

his debate today, that we do appropriations every year. the american people, and for the freshmen who haven't voted on appropriations yet, they think of appropriation somehow different than the law. it really isn't. appropriation is simply a law that provides funding. and every appropriation bill during the entire nearly eight years of president obama has been some form of a continuing resolution or omnibus, but as my colleague from tennessee knows, every one of those has had dozens to hundreds of laws attached thome. we call them riders. we have terms for them. but the fact is that a hinge single appropriations bill -- that a single appropriations bill often done before the end of the funding of the government, always has dozens if not hundreds of laws attached to it. so the idea we don't group together things which are relatively noncontroversial

that will cause someone to still vote for the bill in spite of it being in there, would be to be dishonest to the freshmen who need to know that we do for efficiency bring together things that we can pass en bloc. we do it all the time. and even major legislation, dare say the affordable care act, and others, are in fact, multiple pieces of legislation put together in one package. so lest our freshmen who are about to take their first vote on a major piece of legislation or one that could have major impact misunderstand, bringing together multiple pieces into one bill is common, but it is always done in order to gain votes or to maintain votes. in fact, you do it at your folly if you lose votes. i would say to my friend and colleague from michigan that there is no likelihood that 61

pieces of -- regulation will be put together because there is no chance that there would be 61 pieces that even all republicans would agree should be revoked. i would imagine the number would be less. but i suspect if my bill said two or five or 10 it would still be opposed for the same reason, which is it creates an efficiency if there are multiple generally agreed bad pieces of legislation that need to be considered. lastly, and i'm not closing but i think this may be one of my closing remarks, the freshmen to understand this isn't even about the house. we have the procedures in the house where we could put these together. this is about the senate that can take 60 hours, 60 legislative hours or more, to do one piece of legislation, and we know that the senate has confirmations to do of judges and appointees for the cabinet,

and they have other legislative work. we cannot afford to have them backed up now or in the future if there are multiple regulations that need to be rescinded. with that, mr. speaker, i'll i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from virginia who up until recently was a very active member of the house judiciary committee, he's now the ranking member on the education and labor committee, mr. bobby scott, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 21, the so-called midnight rules relief act which amends the congressional review act, the congressional review act allows

congress to overrule regulations promulgated by the executive branch and that expects a deliberative approach to considering each and every rule. h.r. 21 would allow congress to consider a joint resolution to simultaneously disapprove multiple regulations all at once and such rules are issued in the last 60 legislative days of a session of congress during the final year of a president's term n this case, the 60 legislative days reachback would apply to rules issued as far back as june of last year, almost seven months for the end of the president's term. the rules issued that long ago a midnight rule is a particular misnomer. this bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to relame nate rules, many of which have been under development for years or even decades to protect consumers, working families, and students that still denies congress the

opportunity for a careful, individualized case buy case review that is appropriate for a reasoned decisionmaking legislative body. and under the congressional review act f. a rule is eliminated, such rule can never be taken up again in similar form without additional legislation overriding the restriction. even if the undesirable rule turns out upon further reflection to have been the best alternative. some of the rules that could be imfacted that are just under the jurisdiction of the education and work force committee include, the department of labor's rule requiring federal contractors to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave, annual leave for their employees. upcoming osha rule which has been under development for 18 years which would protect workers from exposure to beryllium, a metal that can cause lung disease resulting in a victim eventual-l suffocating to death. the department of education's

rule involving the defense which helps student borrowers defrauded by their universities. an additional 30 seconds. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. scott: the department of education's k through 12 accountable rule which involves implementation of the every student succeeds act, making sure all students can graduate ready for success for college and career. h.r. 21 is poised to allow wholesale undermining of critical protections for students, workers, taxpayers, and consumers. i therefore urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. delighted to am yield to the gentlelady from florida, miss castor, two

minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. miss cassor: i thank the gentleman -- ms. castor: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. the bill is an unnecessary abdication of legislative responsibility by the republican-led congress and it is very poor public policy. the bill short circuits open debate and public participation. it is also very wasteful because it jettisons carefully and long crafted policies that protect american families from threats to their economic security, their health, and their safety. . under the u.s. constitution, after legislation is passed, if members of congress want to clarify or change executive branch regulations, they have a responsibility to address the matter in a transparent way through open regular order. republicans don't want to do that, however, because the public might find out what they are doing. this republican scheme sets a

dangerous precedent by expanding the ability of the congress to use the congressional review act to disprove hundreds of carefully crafted policies at one time with very little notice or debate. republicans want to reach back to last may and cherry-pick policies they don't agree with. but how would the public know? well, that will be difficult. in many instances, republicans don't want the public to know. so i urge my colleagues to reject this power grab by the new republican congress. it's just like what they tried to do yesterday with the office of congressional ethics. these policies don't just come out of thin air. there's a long, painstaking process with extensive public comment, but public participation doesn't appear to be a priority in this new congress, so reject this bill. fight instead with our democratic principles in america that include open debate, transparency, fiscal responsibility for the security of our neighbors. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, the gentlelady from florida, i'm sure, is well-intended, but there's nothing more transparent than calling up to the floor of this house and debating the removal of regulations found to be excessive or extreme or simply not consistent with the law. that's a transparent process, and the term regular order in fact couldn't be more appropriate to that process. three d a law nearly presidents ago, if you will, that simply called for this procedure. all i'm saying is we should not be mired down if there are five r six or eight bad regulations and not combining them together for purposes of getting them disposed of in a timely fashion. and i might suggest to everyone that remember that many of us

did not support the regulation change yesterday as to the ethics oversight because we do believe in transparency and we'll continue to believe in transparency and, again, nothing is more transparent than bringing to the house floor the debate about something believed to have been done wrong by unelected bureaucrats. bureaucrats is not a dirty word, but unelected fits this process. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a c.r.s. report highlighting the fact that it would be permissible under this regulation -- this law -- bill proposed that as many as 61 regulations could be bundled into one package en bloc by

this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you. nd i yield my concluding peaker, ms. nitia velazquez of -- nydia velazquez of new york, the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. velazquez: this will jeopardize the health and safety of the american people, to benefit corporate america and polluters. let's be clear, the protections that will be overwhelmingly targeted by this measure are not so-called midnight regulations. these are rules that went through significant vetting. there are a host of statutes governing how regulations are crafted, from the administrative procedure act to the regulatory flexibility act through the unfunded mandates reform act to the paperwork

reduction act. these are -- there are numerous processes to ensure regulations are written in a way that protect the american people while preventing overreach. mr. speaker, the -- of the ranking member of the small business committee, i am well acquainted with the need to ensure their regulatory process is balanced. no one supports overregulation, but at the same time, we cannot eliminate safeguards that have a proven record of protecting the american public. this bill also has the potential to create significant regulatory uncertainty for the same small businesses my colleagues say they are trying to help. at its core, this bill is about enabling the largest and most powerful corporations to run

rampant without accountability. the legislation before us could result in less protection for consumers. it could strip away workplace protections. we should reject this bill. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. mr. issa: thank you. then in closing -- i served on the small business committee with ms. velazquez a long time ago, and one thing that we all know is to that committee the nfib, the national federation of independent business, and small business groups alike are something we look at. even n.a.m., the national association of manufacturers, and of course the chamber, all of those organizations support this legislation and they've

written letters in support and i'd ask unanimous consent they be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: thank you. the fact is we're hearing many people talking about important regulations somehow being taken out. let's understand, regulations can go both ways. these changes and the underlying law can also protect the other way. the fact is now we're in the future. you can have an administration that in their final days change regulations to make them more lenient to large businesses, more lenient to polluters, more lenient to the employers to the detriment to their employees. regulations can go both ways, and only the most extreme regulations, literally since he enactment of the underlying -- literally one since the enactment of the underlying

legislation has been repealed. there won't be 60 en bloc be brought. there will be some, i hope. there may be more than one. but for congress to take back piece by piece its responsibility and then live up to that responsibility should be all of our goals. now, this legislation was limited to midnight rules. let's understand, midnight rules are the rules done in the waning days of an administration, seven-plus years into this administration, and many of these rules in fact were enacted after the last vote of the people. in closing, i think it's important to understand on election day, the american people delivered a resounding message to washington. stop the regulatory big government onslaught that's killing jobs. one of my colleagues earlier spoke of the fact that we had had so many jobs, 15 million jobs created in the last eight

years. the percentage of the work force working in america today is the smallest in my lifetime. it is smaller than it was eight years ago, 16 years ago, or 21 years ago. we are not creating jobs at the rate of our population. so let's understand, we should not have some sort of accolade for regulations having created a great economy if in fact that economy has grown less than 2% a year and has not kept up with any historic eight-year period. to me that's an important part, so although the discussion i just had was about more than regulations, let's understand the growth of regulations, of lawmaking is certainly not the creator of jobs. lastly, i think when we look at the cost -- and that's a lot of what we're dealing with in the manager's amendment in this bill.

we're dealing with the recognition that we are looking at regulations in light of how much they cost. now, that cost is based on independent scoring. it's not the administration scoring. it's not my scoring. it's the congressional budget office, an independent agency that doesn't always give a score i want but the score is not arrived through partisan activities. so ultimately in closing i reach out, again, to the members who may not yet know that what we're asking to do is simply to assert our normal ability in congress to put together one or more ideas for the efficiency of the body, send it from here to the senate and from the senate to the president. what we're proposing in this legislation as a small change to the underlying legislation that's been with us for three presidents is in fact consistent with this body doing its job in regular order, in the clear light of day. and i think that's the

important message for this piece of bipartisan legislation is, we are taking back some limited amount of our capability, trying to streamline it and giving the president an opportunity to accept or reject a piece of legislation voted by a majority of the house and the majority of the senate before it gets to the president. the president, if he feels we have included even one regulation inappropriately that he would like to retain, would veto our bill. so let's again, lastly, beg everyone to look at this for what it is, fought for what simple -- not what others say it is. this is consistent of 20-plus years of history and only one piece, one time in which a regulation was withdrawn and no president since that time has tried to produce or ask congress to pass a law to put

into effect a regulation that on a bipartisan basis the house, the senate and a president thought should go. and with that i'd thank all of you. i urge the support for this bill, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to section 5-b of house resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide for an en bloc consideration and resolutions of disapproval for midnight rules and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. castor: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. castor: i oppose. the clerk: ms. castor of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 21 to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith

with the following amendment -- mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentlelady is recognized. the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. colleagues this is the final amendment of the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. my amendment provides an important safeguard for the economic security of american families. by maintaining the consumer-friendly protections in the affordable care act for, one, the cost saving provisions in medicare for lower prescription drugs for our parents and our grandparents and, two, the vital consumer protection that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because someone has a pre-existing

condition like cancer, asthma or diabetes. the affordable care act that republicans would like to repeal without a replacement bill in sight, provided these very important consumer protections for all americans, not just the 20 million americans who gained health insurance through the marketplace or healthcare.gov, but the vast majority of americans who are covered through medicare, that's about 43 million americans, and the folks who have health insurance through their job. at's about 155 million americans. here's what the affordable care acts has done for those folks. one, medicare is stronger. the affordable care act strengthened the medicare trust fund, extending its life by over a decade. in addition, medicare enrollees have benefited from huge savings in prescription drug costs. they've also saved through

preventative screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, diabetes that when they go to the doctor's office now, there is no cost. there is no charge. that's the affordable care act. so if republicans aren't careful in their zeal to repeal the affordable care act, they in essence will be asking our parents and grandparents to pay more, a whole lot more, more for their prescription drugs. and let me get a little local here. i represent the state of florida. about 18% of floridians rely on medicare for their health care. . the a.c.a. because of the affordable care act, it has started to close the doughnut hole. repeal it now and that stops. that goes away. just in 2015 alone, 350,000 florida seniors saved $351 million on their prescription drugs. that's an average of about

$1,000 per beneficiary. my amendment makes the point that democrats are going to fight for our older neighbors to keep those savings intact. brought to you by the affordable care act. second, we also want to put everyone on notice that democrats intend to fight tooth and nail to keep the vital consumer protection, one of the bedrocks of the affordable care act, that bars health insurance companies from refusing to cover you or charge you more because you have a pre-existing condition. or charge women more than men. whether you know it or not, all americans have benefited from the bar on discrimination from pre-existing conditions since january 1, 2014. so if you have health insurance through your employer, you have benefited from the affordable care act. you have gone to health care dot gov because are you a student or partner time or don't have it through your job. you benefited. you have health insurance for your children through the

children health insurance program or medicaid, you are no songer subject to -- longer subject to discrimination. remember a few years ago when insurance companies maintained a long list of conditions. a congressional -- a long list of conditions where they said if you have cancer or diabetes or something, you are automatically excluded. that's the way things were. a congressional investigation into this practice during the health care reform debate uncovered more than 400 medical diagnoses or conditions that insurance used to justify coverage denial. at the top of the list were cancer, heart disease, pregnancy, diabetes, hiv-aids, multiple sker rowcies, -- sclerosis, and generally states with the highest rates of denial were in the south and the midwest. where the overall health status of residents has consistently been worse than other parts of the country. the instance of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes is higher

in those states. well, now you cannot be discriminated against for those pre-existing conditions. that kind of discrimination wasn't right. it had no place in america. so we outlawed it in the affordable care act. just like one of my neighbors, christine roper, in tampa. christine is 26. she recently aged off her father's insurance. and was unsure how to find coverage because she has a heart condition and asthma. before she would have been prohibited from getting health insurance. but not today. we're not going backwards. that's because millions of americans who can now buy coverage would be forced back into the ranks of the ininsured. we're going to start -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. castor: rejecting any attempts to repeal and replace. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise. mr. issa: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. issa: thank you. i remember chairman ed towns, who used to say when someone ran on the gentleman's time has long expired. i think we might have that situation here. but i'm going to give the gentlelady from florida a moment more in just a moment. the motion to recommit specifically sends it back to the committee. that's not necessary. the fact is that if she wanted these changes and wanted them enacted immediately, there is a procedure to do so. so i rise in opposition because this is something that would delay, would send this back to committee and cause it to come back again. but i will yield to the gentlelady from florida for a question if she wouldn't mind. is there a regulation in those 61 that would be affected by this that would affect any of the provisions that you cited in your amendment? miss costor: according to the

-- ms. castor: acoulding to the mid nile rule, the public won't in a moment mr. issa: is there 61 according to the ranking member pieces of regulation that could be in the window? i just wondered if you had one regulation by the obama administration that concerned any of these issues that you had in the act? ms. castor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in fact there are extensive regulations listed as major rules relating to medicare because part of what we did in the affordable care act -- mr. issa: no, no. reclaiming my time. i would ask that the gentlelady if there are someplace them in the record. i don't know of any in those 61 that were granted after june. what i will say is the reason i will be voting and urging my colleagues to vote no on the motion to recommit is not the regulations that she alludes to, but in fact the that this

would kill the bill by sending it back and having it delay further. in order to pass it today because she did not set it up to exclude these items and have them immediately considered, can i not support her motion to recommit. what i will say is that when we look at regulations to put into a package that may be a package of one or package if this passes of more than one, i certainly will expect that those regulations will have to do with things which could have been done sooner, would have been done sooner, and were done in the waning days of the administration for no reason that was time sensitive. the affordable care act was passed in the first days of the administration. if there is something in the last days of the administration that has merit, i certainly would urge my colleagues not to rescind that regulation. but if there is something that should have been done in year one, two, three, four, five, or six, i would ask why it wasn't

done then? having said that, it is unfortunate that this motion to recommit was written in a way that would send it back to committee and thus cause a substantial delay. i would caution my colleagues that at least from this member if you have a motion to recommit and you want the amendment itself considered, make it one that is immediate and not back to committee. the difference i think is important. the parliamentarian simply can advise on how to write one that would prevent it having to get, if you will, another delay of days or weeks. with that, i urge opposition to the motion to recommit. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the motion is not agreed to.

ms. castor: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess sunt