it's not a pleasant picture. the ways in which this legislation accomplishes this result are almost too numerous to list here. but of course i will mention a few. for example, title 1 of the bill would impose more than 70 new analytical requirements that will add years to the rulemaking process. is that what we want to do? i don't think so. worse yet, many of these new requirements are intended to facilitate the ability of regulated entities such as well-funded corporate interests to intervene and derail regulatory protections they oppose. and it would function as a super mandate, overriding critical laws that congress specifically

intended to prohibit agencies from considering costs when merge lives are at stake. additionally, the bill creates numerous procedural hurdles in the rulemaking process. further endangering american lives, through years of delay and increasing the likelihood of regulatory capture. . for example, h.r. 5 dramatically expands the use of formal rulemaking, a time and resource-intensive process requiring formal trial-like hearings for certain rules. formal rulemaking has long been wrongly rejected for good cause s being excessively costly and ill-suited for complex issues.

the administrative section of the american bar association noted that, and i quote, these provisions run directly contrary to a virtual consensus in the administrative law community that the administrative procedure act formal rulemaking procedure is obsolete. i'm also concerned that h.r. 5 would impose an arbitrary one-size-fits-all six-month lay on virtually every new rule. specifically, title 5 of the bill will prohibit agency rules from becoming effective until the information required by the bill has been available online for six months with only

limited exception. clearly h.r. 5 fails to make -- to take into account a vast array of time-sensitive rules ranging from the mundane, such as frequent united states coast guard bridge closing regulations, to those that protect public health and safety, such as forthcoming updates to the lead and copper rule by the environmental protection agency to reduce lead in public drinking water. finally, title 2 of h.r. 5 would eliminate judicial deference to agencies that require federal courts to review all agency rulemaking and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis. the unfortunate result of this requirement is that the bill

would empower the general court to override the determinations of agency experts regardless of the judge's technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter. by eliminating any deference to agencies, h.r. 5 would force agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations, which would further delay the finalization of critical life-saving regulatory protections. the supreme court has recognized that federal courts simply lack the subject matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench. it is ironic that those who

have long decried judicial activism now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking. these are only a few of the many serious concerns presented y h.r. 5, and accordingly, i urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this dangerous legislation and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, the chairman of the oversight and government reform committee and a member of the judiciary committee, mr. chaffetz. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: i want to thank chairman goodlatte. i also want to thank congressman ratcliffe of texas. included in h.r. 5 is the

all-economic regulations or transparent act or the alert act. i want to highlight in the past two congresses that the alert act was reported favorably out of the oversight and government reform and the alert act is simply a transparency bill. it requires the administration to provide meaningful information about upcoming regulations online before those are actually issued. early online disclosure will create the need for transparency so the public can see what's on the horizon. each month federal agencies are list all regulations that will be proposed for finalized in the final year and for each regulation on the list, the issuing agency is required to provide basic information to the public about that regulation including observations of the regulation, where it stands on the rulemaking process. if the agency expects to finalize it within the final year they are required to provide information about the impact of the regulation. this includes estimates on the

costs, the completion date, the economic effects of the regulation, including the net effect on jobs, something that doesn't happen now but seems to be just common sense. and in this 21st century, federal agencies should have to show their work online so the public can engage. that's why i like what mr. ratcliffe has championed since he's become a member of this congress. let's understand and remember the administration's own estimates federal regulations promulgated over the last 10 years have imposed a cost of at least $100 billion annually, annually on the american taxpayers. again, i appreciate chairman goodlatte's work and commitment on this issue. i want to thank our good friend, congressman john ratcliffe and his work on this. the oversight and government reform committee has looked upon this very favorably. we're very supportive of the overall bill as well as the specific provision. i thank you for the time and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. m pleased now to recognize a

very active former member of judiciary, mr. scott of virginia, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. scott gellar thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. conyers, for yielding. the house has considered three bills on the house floor designed to undermine the executive branch to implement essential public health protections for the people we have the honor of representing. the so-called midnight rules relief act, which could retroactively disallow rules issued as far back as june of last year. the reins act, which requires the majority vote of both houses of congress before any major rule can go into effect. and today's rerget accountability act which is a -- regulatory accountability act which would effectively tie the executive branch into so much red tape that consumer protections might not ever see the light of day.

by enacting these statutes, the take care ll not that laws be faithfully executed and replace them with a series of layers that can be applied by deep pockets of special interests including one that prevents a rule from going -- prevents some rules from going into effect that may affect public safety if somebody files a lawsuit. the question of who loses when these playing fields are tilted this way, well, just a couple within the jurisdiction of the committee on education and labor, 4.2 million working people would lose. that's the number of people who would be eligible for overtime pay as a result of the responsible actions taken by the obama administration. they would lose the benefit of the overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours a week. working families and seniors could lose their retirement savings. last year the obama administration released a

fiduciary rule to ensure that retirement savings are protected from financial advisors who may prioritize fees over services. without the rule, working families and seniors could lose billions of dollars every year in retirement savings which would be unnecessarily -- by being unnecessarily charged by unscrupulous financial advisors. and students and low-income school districts could lose. without the department of education's new supplement sue plant rule, they would lose critical resources and those resources will be redirected to wealthier districts. so let's be clear that the bill before us is not on the side of workers, students and retirees and instead adds more layers to the process, rigging it in favor of powerful corporate interests and encouraging frivolous lawsuits. that's not what congress should be focusing on. instead, we should be building on the progress that's been achieved over the last eight years. we've been considering

legislation that increases wages, improves the lives of working families, increases access to high-quality childcare and early childhood education, supports quality public schools in every neighborhood, makes colleges more affordable, helps american families balance work and family life and empowers workers to organize and collectively bargain. that's been the focus of my democratic colleagues on the education and work force committee, and that focus will remain in the years ahead and so i urge the majority to partner with us to protect and promote the rights of working people and students by defeating this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader of the house, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the chairman for his work. i'd also like to highlight a few members whose work is inside this bill. first, congressman marino,

congressman ratcliffe, chairman chabot and congressman luetkemeyer. they've all done a tremendous amount of work to make this bill here today, and i appreciate that. mr. speaker, we have a grave problem in our federal government. it undermines our constitution, it contradicts the will of the people and it is a dead weight on our economy, destroying american jobs and costing billions of dollars per year in paperwork and lost opportunities. i'm talking about the duplicative and unforgiving federal bureaucratic state. but before i discuss the dangers that an overzellous bureaucracy presents to our country, i want to be -- overzealous bureaucracy resents to our country, i want to tell you we are trying to change the state of washington that deprives the people of their power. second, to repeal specific

harmful regulations. we'll get started on the second part early next month. we've already passed two bills last week to change washington's structure -- the midnight rules act and the reins act. today, we will pass the third -- the regulatory account act -- accountability act. this will allow agencies to do what they are charged to do and prohibits large rules from going into effect while they are still being challenged in court. but it also ends something called chevron deference, where courts automatically bend to the agency's interpretation of the rules. under the current standard, that means the agency will win almost every single time in the courtroom and the people lose. these three bills are about more than stopping bad regulations from being made. they're about changing the process in washington that

systematically prioritizes government over the common good instead of making government serve the common good. mr. speaker, our nation is based on a principle that power ultimately comes from the people. elections are the great foundation of our republic, and as we saw so clearly this last november, through them the people can make their voices heard. but something has changed. some of the most significant decisions in washington, those that most affect the lives of the public are made by those who don't stand for election. what happens when the e.p.a. imposes rules that deprive people of their property rights? or when the department of homeland security tries to force nuns to violate their religion? or when the v.a. perpetuates a system that lets veterans die while they wait for their care? the people can't vote out the

bureaucrats who write rules at the e.p.a. or at the department of homeland security. they can't vote out bad leaders of the v.a. -- or at the department of health and human services. and they can't vote out bad leaders at the v.a. without elections, the people lose. washington is brimming with executive employees devoted to preserving the status quo. then, there's the revolving door of high-level federal employees who head major consulting firms and lobbying arms to influence the very agencies they came from. this breeds thousands of regulations that further enrich the connected and powerful. sometimes at the great expense of the average american, and it's our economy and the american worker that suffers the most. federal regulations written and enacted by these bureaucracies impose a burden of about $1.89

trillion every year. that number is hard to sense or even imagine. t comes to roughly $15,000 per u.s. household or 10% of the american g.d.p. . the bomb alone has written regulations that require over 583 million hours to comply with that's an average of nearly of paperwork for every single full-time employee in america. the federal register is now the ength of 80 king james bibles. when bureaucracies and bureaucrats and agencies' heads cannot be held accountable and they keep their jobs regardless of corruption, incompetence, waste, fraud, abuse, or a backroom deal, they make with special interests, that's the problem. that's the swamp.

and we need to drain it. there is a reason why the house is restructuring washington first. it's because we made a commitment to the american the that we would drain swamp. now we're today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, it's now my pleasure to recognize the ranking memberth-h of the committee on oversight and government reform, mr. cummings of maryland, and he has yielded three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 5. before i go into that let me be clear, after listening to the leader a minute ago, i want to thank all the federal employees who work so hard and give so much. who are so often, unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and

unablauded. i oppose this unnecessary and potentially dangerous legislation in its entirety. however i will focus on my remarks on title 5 of this bill which is in the jurisdiction of the oversight committee. title 5 also known as the alert act an attack on agency rule making like the rest of this bill. this title would prohibit the office of information and regulatory affairs from taking into account benefits when providing estimating -- estimated costs of proposed and final rules. that's not transparency. it's one side of the story. this bill would also prevent a rule from taking effect until certain information is posted online for six months by the administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs. the only exceptions to this

requirement would be if an agency exempts the rule from a notice and comment requirements of the administrative procedure act. or if the president issues an executive order. that six-month delay in putting any rule in place, no matter how ig or how small, right now there are rules pending to protect the public from pipeline accidents involving hazardous liquids. those are our constituents, by the way. and to protect the privacy of patients' records. again, those are our constituents. this bill would put an arbitrary six-month moratorium on rules like these. the coalition for sensible safeguards, a coalition of over 150 labor, scientific, health, and good government groups sent a letter on january 10, 2017,

opposing h.r. 5 to all members of the house of representatives. that letter said in part, and i quote, the act is designed to impede government's ability to implement critical new public health and safety protections by dding a six-month delay. this amounts to a six-month regulatory moratorium even after the often lengthy period required for developing and finalizing these regulations. such delays could extend well beyond that initial six-month period. the administration failed to post required information in a timely fashion. the other titles of this bill are not any better and would impose so many requirements on agencies that issuing regulations to protect health and safety would be almost impossible. with that i urge my colleagues

to reject h.r. 5. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the chairman of the regulatory reform subcommittee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, and the author of the chief sponsor of one of the bills contained herein. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 5, the regulatory it accountability act. this bill represents the monumental opportunity for the american people. after eight years of one new crushing regulatory burden after another, the time has come to finally free the american people and create a new future for our economy. in 2017 regulatory burdens are at record levels. on recent analysis by the american action forum puts the cumulative paperwork burden on

the american people at 11.5 billion hours. how could any small businessperson or entrepreneur survive in the face of this monstrous web of regulation? the short answer is that they cannot. it is a fact seen across my district as i have talked to workers covering every industry or occupation imaginable. when i asked business owners about their concerns, first and foremost the greatest hardship they face is the burden of federal regulation and red tape. funds which otherwise could be invested in new employees, training, or equipment must be dedicated to the demands of faceless bureaucrats in d.c. the supplies to plumbers as well as farmers, manufacturers, to home builders. the list of those affected is long and varied. the simple truth is that the obama administration's

one-size-fits-all regulatory agenda has been a disaster for the american dream. and we have seen over the past several months how disconnected it was from the wants and needs of americans across the contry. -- country. in congress, however, we have heard their pleas and taken action in the early days of the 115th congress. h.r. 5 is the third regulatory reform bill we have considered in two weeks. it represents our brightest opportunity to unleash innovation and investment so that american businesses, big and small, can create a new future. i'm also grateful that h.r. 5 includes my bill, the review act. the review act will feature as part of speaker ryan's a better way agenda and patched the house -- passed the house on a bipartisan basis last fall. it represents a simple premise. regulations should be narrowly tailored and massive regulations

deserve full and thorough scrutenifment review would mandate a stay of any high impact billion dollar regulation while judicial review is under way. historically billion dollar rules have been few and far between. in fact, only 26 have been put in place since 2006. but in recent years their frequency has grown along with the unprecedented reach of the regulatory state. in the past eight years an average of three per year have been put in place. their significance, however, lies in their impact on our country. these regulations are massive and have the potential to fundamentally and irreversibly change entire industries. if later judicial review finds the agency's reasoning to be legally unsound or contrary to the intent of congress, the compliance cost incurred often meaning jobs that were lost could not be undone.

the review act provides an important check on regulatory largess and is an important piece of this bill. the american people have spoken and they have spoken clearly. it is time for us all to take our country and the economy in the right direction. the regulatory accountability act provides the reforms necessary to get us there. i urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. senior member of our committee from tennessee, mr. cohen, has followed this matter closely and i'm pleased to yield to him, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. conyers, mr. speaker. these groups are a group of bills that have been considered for many years and passed on partisan votes in the house. what they do when you repeal regulations or make it harder to have regulations is you make it better for business, better for

the chamber crowd, better for the manufacturing folk. but there is always a cost for everything, i think it was isaac newton said for every action there is an opposite reaction. you take regulations off and increase business and make it easier, but there is an equal opposite effect. that is the consumer. the consumer of the products whether it's food and food safety. whether it's water safety purity. air safety. whether it's toys and manufacturers' defects or automobiles and safety and transportation. could be an airplane transportation. there is always a side that loses. the side that loses is the consumers and the folks who will be injured and/or killed because of lack of regulations. life know how much one

is worth, if it's mine, one of my loved one, one of my constituents, it's worth a lofment but it's worth a lot no matter who it is. and there are going to be lots of people who will not survive some of these regulations because there is going to be injuries in the workplace because regulations for safety aren't there. there will be food products that are defective because regulations arnts in place and people will eat food that is not appropriate. not pure. i had an amendment i proposed here on civil rights. i think civil rights is one of our most precious rights. one that's been neglected on many occasions. that amendment would have said this would not affect any civil rights rules. it was not put in order. but that includes people with disabilities. those are areas where we should have exempted and not had anything stop our steadfastness toward securing civil rights and securing opportunities for people's disabilities. i'm against the bills, for the

consumer. i think there might be a measured way to do this, but this is a heavy-handed way to do and the consumer loses. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, the chairman of the small business committee, member of the judiciary committee, and the chief sponsor of one of the bills contained herein. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in strong support of h.r. 5, the regulatory accountability act. just in response to the previous gentleman's comments, i would just note that none of the regulations that we're considering today, the legislation, is going to do away with regulations all together. or even significantly, especially regulations that have to do with people's safety. we're not trying to do anything that's going to affect the safety of the american people. just trying to make sure the regulations are smarter. and that's what this is all about. i'm also pleased that title 3 of

h.r. 5 is a bill that i sponsored last term and in this congress, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act. the committee on small business that i happen to chair in the committee on the judiciary have crafted this bill with bipartisan input. over many years. and i want to thank chairman goodlatte for working with us on this important legislation. i thank him for his leadership. small businesses are found in every congressional district and in every industry. they provide livelihoods for millions of workers and for their families. small businesses employ nearly half of the private sector work force and generate two out of every three new jobs in the private sector today. the federal government should be doing everything it can to encourage these small but mighty job creators. unfortunately oppressive red tape has had the opposite effect. discouraging investment. expansion, and job growth. i'm not saying that all regulations are bad.

but there are too many rules. and for too long agencies have ignored their true effect, true impact on small businesses. small businesses are at a real disadvantage because they have fewer resources and rarely have in house counsel. and they -- regulatory compliance staff that would be necessary to guide them through this maze generally small businesses just don't have that. so shouldn't regulators at the very least examine the effects of new rules on small businesses and consider ways to reduce excessive burdens? of course they should. there is a law, the regulatory flexibility act or the r.f.a., which requires agencies to conduct this commonsense assessment when they regulate. even though the law has been on the books for over 36 years, agencies too frequently just ignore its requirements. the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act, which is title 3 in this bill,

eliminates loopholes that agencies like the internal revenue service have used to avoid compliance with the r.f.a. it also forces agencies to analyze not only the direct but also the indirect effects of rules on small businesses. just as agencies are required to do when promulgating major rules affecting, for example, the environment. and it gives small businesses additional opportunities for early input on proposed rules and regulations and strengthens the r.f.a.'s requirement for agencies to periodically review old rules. in this legislation today would not let them issue a rule or regulation but force the rule makers to think carefully before they act. it's great legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia.

mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliffe a member of the judiciary committee and the chief sponsor of two of the measures contained here. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ratcliffe: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the regulatory account act of 2017. chairman -- nk regulatory accountability act of 2017. i want to thank chairman goodlatte. you see, mr. speaker, the realities of president obama's failed liberal progressive experiment are all too real for a million texans on that i represent. reality's like higher prices for families in sulphur springs trying to make end's meet, fewer jobs for those seeking work in texarkana, small businesses in sherman and rockwall forced to close their doors. mr. speaker, these are just a

few of the countless devastating symptoms of overregulation that citizens across our great country have been forced to endure under president obama. look, the president gives a good speech and did he so again last night in his farewell last night. he read us a fictional tale last night. the inescapable truth is for eight long years the constant stream of regulations being pumped out by the obama administration is taking a toll on american families and businesses and our economy and it's made our country less prosperous and leaving folks worse off than before. the urgency to reverse this un sustainible quagmire could be be more clear than november when the american people rose up and elected a new president who vowed not to subject us to more of the same. that's where all my bill and all the bills in the regulatory

accountability act come into play. when you look back at the last eight years, many people wonder how the obama administration was allowed to grow at such an alarming rate. there are a lot of troubling factors that go into that equation but the result of an bill, the chevron doctrine. for three decades now they have required courts to defer to agency interpretations of congressional intent. said in more plain terms, mr. speaker, this means that when individuals challenge federal regulators in court, the deck is stacked in favor of the regulators, the very same regulators who've written the regulations in the first place. letting regulators grade their own papers? if that doesn't reinforce the need to drain the swamp, then i don't know what does. my legislation, the separation of powers restoration act, will

fix this per version of our constitution -- perversion of our constitution by ensuring that congress, not executive branch agencies, write our laws and that courts, not agency bureaucrats, interpret our laws. mr. speaker, title 5 of this bill is my alert act legislation and it provides another critical remedy to the current regulatory process by fixing the lack of transparency that is both unfair and harmful to individuals and small businesses across the country. right now the current law requires the administration to release and update twice a year on the regulations that are being developed by federal agencies. the problem is that the regulators are ignoring the law . as these updates have either been very late or never issued at all under president obama's watch. and up to this point, there hasn't been a way to reinforce and enforce these requirements.

so the alert act tackles this problem by forcing the executive branch to make the american people aware of regulations that are coming down the track, and it prohibits any regulation from going into effect unless and until detailed information on the cost of the regulation, its impact on jobs and the legal basis for the regulation have been available to the public on the internet for at least six months. mr. speaker, the way our government has been allowed to function under this administration isn't how our forefathers intended our government to work. today's legislation takes a giant step forward in fixing how washington works, and i've already spoken to president-elect trump about partnering together to make this the law of the land and to give the american people back the government that our founders intended, a government that works for them, not the

other way around. mr. speaker, we owe them nothing less. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: nine minutes, sir. the gentleman from michigan, 15 1/2. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, the ranking member of the house agriculture committee, mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman for recognizing me. mr. speaker, i strongly support h.r. 5 and urge my colleagues to do as well. this bill will reform our regulatory system and reduce burdens on our farmers, ranchers and businesses. h.r. 5 will create a more streamlined, transparent and accountable regulatory process and give the american people a stronger voice in agency

decisionmaking. requiring agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking option and providing additional opportunities for judicial review will ensure that regulations are narrowly tailored, addressing the issues at hand and that this will reduce the burden on farmers, as i said, ranchers, businesses and everyday citizens. this is a good bill. i urge my colleagues to support it, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, the chief sponsor of one of the bills contained herein. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise in strong support of the bill on the floor before us, the regulatory account act act of

2017. over the last eight years, it's been clear that our country has been on the wrong path to overregulation and government bureaucracy, the chance of the american dream has seemed to be slipping away and unreachable for far too many americans. in november the american people spoke and made it clear. it's time to reform the rulemaking process to have robust growth in the american economy. to do so we not only need to address the number of federal regulations but also their convoluted and complex nature. our constituents should not need a law degree or an army of consultants and accountants to understand the rules they are required to follow. nevertheless, given their technical language, it can be extremely difficult to understand proposals unless one is an expert in that field. title 6 of h.r. 5 includes language from a bill i introduced earlier in this congress. my bill, the providing accountability through transparency act, would require each federal agency to produce

a 100-word, plain language summary of the proposal and make it publicly available online. this commonsense reform will give the american people straightforward and uncomplicated access to the rules proposed by the executive branch. the american people deserve to be informed by the rules and regulations being proposed by their government, and i'm honored to have my legislation included in this regulation-curving package. i want to thank chairman goodlatte for his leadership on h.r. 5, as well as my colleagues who joined me in contributing language to this critical legislation. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you and i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 5, the regulatory accountability act.

many are right to point out the crushing impact of washington's overregulation has had on our economy. we all know too well how it has driven up the cost of health care, financial services and energy and it's long past time for reform. i'd like to highlight a provision that i offered three years ago that requires agency to identify when new rules will have a negative impact on jobs and wages. too often regulators and agency heads are well aware of the negative impact it will have on americans' jobs and wages even before it is imposed but they impose it anyway. specifically, my provision defines when rules have a negative impact on jobs and wages and requires agency heads approving such a rule to submit a statement that they approve the rule knowing its negative impact. when people in this faroff capitol take away the jobs and livelihoods of american families, as they have done with miners and power plant workers and laborers in my district, they need to own up to it. the regulatory account act act

will help -- accountability act will help us from reckless washington overreach and i encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. i thank the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. conyers: no, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from texas, a senior member of the house , ms. ry committee jackson lee, for five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member for convening us. it reinforces my commitment to the importance of the house judiciary committee for portant and innovative and

groundbreaking, in some instances, work we have done. and so in this instance, i find fault because this legislation does not meet that criteria. just a few days ago, we read the constitution, and some might make the argument that h.r. 5 fits very comfortably into the bill of rights, the on 5, amendment 5, and 14th amendment. both frame themselves around the question of due process, but i make the argument that this legislation is sorely lacking. i want to take up, first of all, a point made by my colleague, a member of the rules committee. this legislation, to my recalling, has been circulated for many years.

when it says i have passed, in the house, when a bill like h.r. 5 has passed over and over again, this bill appeared in the 114th congress. many members left since that time. new members are here. new members, republicans and democrats, will be added to the house judiciary committee, to the senate judiciary committee. none of them will have had the opportunity for regular order, to be able to ensure hearings and to be able to engage in input with amendments that i agree or disagree with, but to have a vigorous debate in our judiciary committee as well as in the senate. it did not happen. we're now on the floor of the house. so that is one fracture of what is happening. one achilles' heel to this legislation. in the last 24 hours, i heard a news account of a little boy

ho swallowed magnets that were produced by a particular company, and it went through the process. it was designated dangerous, and then unfortunately, that dangerous status was recalled, pulled back, and the company was excited about producing those magnets again. but the little boy who swallowed them i think was about 2 years old, had major intestinal surgery. most of his intestines were removed. he's now 6 years old, and he st now be fed intervene -- intervene yussly. a happy boy. but his devastation is our failure, and that is what we are facing with h.r. 5.

i don't know if my colleagues know, as boring as the administrative procedure act was, mr. conyers, in law squool i liked the course. i had a great professor who made me understand the life of the a.p.a. and its value. this legislation attempts to rewrite the administrative procedure act to the detriment to the american people. consider this -- hardworking agencies who should have oversight, that is what our committees are all about. . they should have oversight, will now have to jump through hoops of 70 new criteria. i didn't say 10. i didn't say a quarter of a hundred. 25. i didn't say a half of a hundred, 50. but 70 when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem the rule's meant to address, and potential cost and benefits of the proposal and

alternatives. i want to see small businesses thrive. part of that includes a reasonable health care package like the obamacare, affordable care, for its employees. a reasonable new structure dealing with taxation that helps small businesses and does not give the mountain of benefit to major corporations. maybe we should address the needs of small businesses in that manner. or as my minority constituents tell me, access to credit. which is generally denied to women, hispanics, in some instances, and certainly african-americans. that may help our small businesses get them back on their feet. but that is not what h.r. 5 does. it stifles the work of our agencies of which we have attributed to them, small business administration, health and human services, the federal , the f.c.c., in

some instances the department of justice articulating regulations dealing with funding of juvenile issues. mr. conyers: i yield two minutes additional to the gentlelady. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two additional minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. ese are agencies it that are dependent upon to give regular order. oversight is important. but i would make the argument that stifling, denying, demolishing, destroying is not order. now, i had an amendment that i think is crucial. it was to provide an exception under this bill for regulations to help prevent cyberattacks on election processes or institutions. mr. chairman, not only have we profoundness,

that a foreign entity in this instance, russia, maybe it might be iran, maybe it might be some other country, intruded into the democratic process of elections. and i'm glad senator graham said, this is not republicans or democrat. this is about the integrity of the election system. and while we were hesitant to make this amendment in order because there is no stopping of the peaceful transfer of government. the american people cede to that process. thank god for our love of democracy. we're able to express our opposition in many different ways. but there is no doubt that not only was there intrusion, there was a skewing to one candidate versus another.

there are prints, this is public knowledge, that have been able to be tracked. to suggest who, what, and what country, and how far up the chain to mr. putin that it went to. so my amendment, i think, was constructive. why would we be reluctant to debate it? why would we be reluctant to acknowledge the intelligence report of russian activities and intentions in u.s. elections, and why we would be reluctant to find out who was involved. h.r. 5 is not doing what it's supposed to do. it is, in fact, undermining the constitution and eliminating the protection for a little boy who now lives his life completely different because maybe we didn't intervene in the regulatory manner of oversight over that product that we

should, and maybe now we have given them a path so that other children might suffer the same consequences. i ask my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. send it back for us to do the work of the people in regular order. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 5. let's get back to what we're talking about. we're talking about overregulation right now. we're not talking about the red army or any other type of a red threat coming in here. the real threat is red tape. red tape. we're not talking about scotch tape or duct tape. we're talking about red tape. $2 trillion worth of red tape that the american taxpayers and american consumers have to pay for every year. that's trillion with a t. every single regulation that goes into effect, not by elected

officials but by un-elected bureaucrats, i'm not saying they are not well intended, i'm saying they are not well thought out. we didn't know who is going to pay for all these. the burden is on the american consumer, american taxpayers. so if we're talking about creating jobs, if we're talking about having our economy get back on track, why don't we get the heavy regulatory boot of the government off the throat of america's job creators? why don't we make it easier for people to be profitable? why don't we make it easier for people to start a new business? why don't we make the prices cheaper on the shelf and all the services that are out there cheaper for americans to buy and purchase? we get caught number this some kind of debate about things that don't even make sense to everyday americans. they elect us to come and represent them. they don't elect us to come and preach to them. they don't elect us to come and say you poor, poor stupid people, you don't understand. help you. g to help you.

the congress has the oversight of this. this is our job. why would we turn it over to un-elected bureaucrats? how about? in 2015 we passed 114 laws. meanwhile, there were 3,410 rules that were put into effect. is there a little bit of a problem with the balance there? is there a little bit of a problem there with the people who sent us to represent them and say, no, you don't understand. that rule, that regulation, i never had a chance to weigh in on it. they are saying why in the heck did we send you? i appreciate the fact that federal employees need to be appreciated. being one of those employees, i do appreciate that. when i go home i love when people tell me, you know what, we appreciate you're standing up for us. we appreciate thaur' watching where our tax dollars are going. we appreciate the fact you are trying to make it easier for us to breathe, make it easier for us to succeed. make it east your for us to supply all this revenue. every single penny that this government needs to run on, is not supplied by the congress. it's supplied by hardworking

american taxpayers. you know what, we can't even collect enough money from them to cover our bills. we got to borrow more. but they are responsible for t we sign their name on every single debt that we make. it is time to wake up and smell the coffee. this is not about some other debate. this is about what we're doing to hardworking american taxpayers and hardworking americans every sing daily. then we're saying no, no, you don't understand you poor stupid people. you don't understand. we're trying to maket air clean. yes, i understand that. that's what we're doing. why do you try to change it into something that doesn't make sense? please go back into your communities and talk to these folks that are saddled with these expenses and look them in the eye and tell them you are not smart enough to know how our government works. one theng they know is we're $20 trillion in the red. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kelly: i thank you. yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm

pleased now to turn to a distinguished member of our judiciary committee from georgia, mr. johnson, and to yield to him five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: i thank the ranking member and i thank the chair. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 5, the regulatory accountability act of 2017. i have a number of concerns with many provisions of this voluminous bill which is 82 pages long, it has not gone through regular order, not one committee meeting. congress just came into session last week. so we have got 50-plus new members in this body who have not had one single day of an opportunity to pay any attention to learn what's in this bill. but yet my colleagues on the other side are going to force their folks to vote yes on this bill. i urge them to vote no and think

about it. the reason why they should think about it is because h.r. 5 is a destructive revision of the administrative procedure act that fiendishly convowlutes the agency rule making process through numerous analytical requirements. we call that gumming up the works. these requirements, which are largely opposed by the nation's leading administrative law experts, would cause years of delays in the rule making process and deregulate entire industries through rule making avoidance by agencies. in addition to imposing over 60 new procedural requirements on regulatory protections, title 1 of h.r. 5 imposes a new supermandate requiring that agencies adopt the least costly rule considered during the rule making that meets relevant statutory objectives and permits agencies to choose a more expensive option only if the

additional benefits justify its additional costs. the afl-cio has observed that this provision would make protecting workers and the public secondary. limiting the costs and impacts on business and corporations is the prime purpose of this legislation. there is little doubt that this proposal will compromise public health, workplace safety, and environmental protections. agencies will be forced to make penny-wise and pound-foolish decisions. it costs more, everybody knows, to remedy an environmental or financial calamity than it would be to protect the public from the kwlamity occurring in the first place -- calamity occurring in the first place, which the underlying regulation would do. but they don't want regulations. this is unbelievable. title 2 of the bill abolishes judicial deference to agencies

reasoned statutory interpretations, which has been a hallmark of judicial review for more than three decades. talk about judicial restraint and not legislating from the bench. that's what the supreme court in its chevron rule has emphasized over the last three decades. in addition to incentivizing judicial activism by generalist courts, which would engage in rule making pro the bench by -- from the bench by making policy decisions rather than strictly interpreting the law, this provision will also make the regulatory system more costly and time consuming because it would require agencies to take even more time to promulgate critical protections that the court ultimately decides on its own through its ability to legislate from the bench. that it doesn't like. this is nonsense. it's hypocritical.

title p of the bill -- 3 of the bill further perilizing rule making decisionmaking unworkable complex requirements while endoug the haloed small business administration's office of advocacy with broad authority to act as the gatekeeper of our nation's entire regulatory system. as the center for progressive reform reported in a 2013 report , this entity, this small business administration's office f advocacy, exists in an unchecked capacity to funnel, quote, special interest pressure into agency rule making even though such interests have already had an opportunity to comment on regulations. in other words, the small business administration's office of advocacy is a backdoor, wide open to corporate seeking to come in and undermine the

regulatory authority of an agency. at a time when there has been much talking and tweeting about draining the swamp, this measure would function as a green light to special interests, to manipulate the regulatory system in their favor. moreover, my republican colleagues' repeated claim that this measure will create regular ligse by representation will claw back authority from the executive branch, that argument is fundamentally undermined by the fact that this bill consolidates the role of a subagency, the small business administration, in such an opaque and reckless manner. i'd ask the gentleman for two additional minutes. mr. conyers: i can only give him one. mr. johnson: thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. johnson: have you ever heard of any legislation that purports to take power back from unleekted bureaucrats? and in places it right back in the hands of a bureaucrat in the

same piece of legislation? this is ridiculous. title 4 of h.r. 5 would automatically delay the effective date of any rule exceeding $1 bill m costs that is challenged in court regardless whether the party challenging the rule has any likelihood of success on the merits, is actually harmed by the rule, or whether staying the rule would be contrary to public interests. so while they sit here and take the rights of regular ordinary working people to sue corporations under the guise of tort reform, so-called tort reform, they turn around in this legislation, open the courthouse door wide, to corporations, to come in and file frivolous complaints against a regulation and automatically stall it. this is ridiculous. . this legislation is reiff with corporate protections at the expense of the people and i ask my colleagues to vote no on this

legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman has 3 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. knight. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. knight: i thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 5, the regulatory accountability act of 2017. over the last eight years, we've seen the administration authorize hundreds of executive orders directing federal agencies to issue, finalize and implement an unprecedented number of regulations. most of these imposed one-size-fits-all standards on small businesseses. as a member of small business committee, it is kind of my job to go out and find out what mall businesses have to offer,

what is inhibitting their ability to create and make more jobs for our industry and for our economy, and what we have found is that overregulation is stifling them. that is the problem. that is not something that we have made up. that is the problem in this economy. that's why i'm proud to support h.r. 5 and particularly title 3, which addresses one vital area that protects small businesses, the regulatory flexibility act, or r.f.a. the r.f.a. requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of new regulations on small businesses. however federal agencies regularly exploit loophole in the r.f.a. requirements that is allow them to produce inadequate or inaccurate analysis of impacts. we know this can have devastating outcomes, as witnessed in the department of labor's overtime rule issued last year, which was one of the top concerns for many of the small businesses and nonprofits that operate in my district and across this country.

it would eliminate loopholes to ensure compliance and require agencies to provide more detailed information in nail sills. i -- in analysis. i encourage my colleagues to, on both sides of the aisle, support this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan who has 21 -- 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. conyers: i'm prepared to close if the other side is ready. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close as well. the chair: the gentleman is prepared to close. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. this has been an enlightening discussion because we've determined that h.r. 5 is based on the faulty premise that environmental and public safety protections kills jobs, results in economically stifling costs

nd promotes uncertainty. in fact, regulatory protections that ensure the safety of american-made products unquestionably foster job creation and protect the competitiveness of our business and global market place. this explains why so many , ganizations, more than 150 strongly oppose this legislation. mr. chairman, our constituents and the american citizens deserve something better than h.r. 5. we need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity. we need sensible regulations

that protect american families , that bring ruin predatory financial practices to an end. we need workplace safety protections that ensure hardworking americans can go to work each day without having to risk their lives as a result of hazardous work environments. unfortunately the measure before us does nothing to advance any of these critical calls. so i must therefore oppose h.r. 5 and ask my colleagues to support a negative vote on this matter and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 3/4 minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, the facts are plain. the conclusion is clear. the rampant tide of unchecked,

unbalanced federal regulation is overwhelming job creators and households all across this nation. thanks to washington's endless excess of regulations, hardworking americans face higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs and fewer new business starts. america as a whole is less competitive, less innovative and less prosperous. federal regulations now impose an estimated burden of an amazing $1.89 trillion per year. that burden is burying america's job creators and suffocating job opportunities. it equals roughly $15,000 per u.s. household, over 10% of america's g.d.p., and more than the g.d.p. of all but eight countries in the world. the obama administration set new records for numbers in effects of major regulations. over 600 in total with an average of 81 per year. that is roughly one every three working days. through just august, 2016, these rules had economic effects of

over $740 billion. nd imposed $194 -- 194 million paperwork burden hours. this only built upon the insufficiently checked regulation already imposed by previous administrations. this problem must be solved. and this bill is the number one solution to this problem. it's bold -- its bold innovative measures will unleash freedom, opportunity and resourcefulness by dramatically reducing new regulatory costs and they will do that while still allowing agencies to achieve the benefits that congress' statutes have tasked them to achieve. far fewer costs, all the benefits, who could be against that? we all should be for it. just as the american people are. support the american people, support the regulatory accountability act. i urge my colleagues to do so and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 115-2. a of house report each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand or division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house

report 115-2 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: if congress is effectively to rein in the runaway administrative state, a crucial part of the plan must be to overturn legislatively the doctrines of judicial deference to agencies' interpretations of the statutes and regulations they administer. these doctrines, founded in the supreme court's decision in chevron vs. nrdc, have over the years tern turned the courts -- have turned the courts far too much into a rubber stamp, rather than a vigorous check on the self-serving tendencies of agencies to interpret the law to expand their own power. title 2 of the bill, the separation of powers act,

delivers this legislative reversal of chevron vs. hour. there's one thing, though, that still needs to be added to that portion of the bill. that is language to check the potential that, once they are restored, the full interpreterive powers that rightfully belong to them are --, our article 3 courts will not engage in judicial activism. to put a point on it, judges must not be allowed to use the separation of powers act as a license to interpret ambiguous statutes always to expand agency power. my amendment therefore succinctly but powerfully provides just that. it prohibits courts from reading ambiguities in constitutes to contain implicit delegations of legislative rulemaking authority to agencies or from reading those ambiguities expansively to extends agency power. although it failed in its task, the chesk ron doctrine was original -- chevron doctrine was originally crafted to help check that kind of judicial activism.

as we end the failed chevron experiment, we should make sure we do not go back to judicial activism. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: to rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is in opposition of the amendment. mr. johnson: yes, i am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: to say that this amendment stops judicial activism is stretching things a little bit, i believe. this opens the floodgates to judicial activism, the goodlatte amendment. so that's why i oppose the amendment. it revises title 2 of the bill, to eliminate agencies' gap-filling authority when interpreting ambiguous statutes. judicial review of final agency action is a hallmark of administration -- of administrative law, and is

critical to ensuring that agency action does not harm or the public.fect as the supreme court held in chesk ron vs. natural resources -- chevron vs. natural resources defense council in 1984, reviewing courts may only invalidate an agency action when it violates a constitutional provision, or when an agency exceeds its statutory authority, as clearly expressed by congress. that's a clear rule that has worked fine for america for the last 30 years. over that time, this seminal decision has required deference to the substantive expertise and political accountability of federal agencies, because after all, judges don't have political accountability because they are appointed for life. they're not elected by the people. so, this legislation is turning around this very fair and

and ced court decision instead imposing a new set-up, one that invites judges, who they appoint, by the way, they are the ones who have refused for the last year to appoint or to consider the appointment of a u.s. supreme court justice, so that they could get a republican in the white house. they did not want anybody other than somebody made-to-order. and that's what this legislation lays the groundwork for, is that new supreme court justice who is et to be named by a republican incoming president. but you can bet it will be one o has corporate interests at heart, instead of that of middle class and working people and

regular, ordinary people. you can bet that that supreme court representative will be ready to do away with the chevron doctrine and comply with this legislation -- legislative mandate, which is open season on regulations, allow the federal judiciary to impose its political beliefs on regulations . so that's going to be bad for america. generalist courts, which are constitutionally insulated from political accountability, should not have the power to second guess agency experts concerning the appropriateness of highly technical regulations crucial to protecting the health and safety of millions of americans. moreover, this doctrine promotes predictability for businesses and the public. professor levin notes that because citizens can put some

confidence in the expectation that decisions by a centralized agency will not be readily overturned by a variety of courts in different parts of the country, that contributes to predictability. title 2 of h.r. 5, however, would upend this longstanding precedent by abolishing the chesk ron doctrine. . this amendment puts the thumb on the scale by ensuring that any statutory ambiguity will be voted in favor of a regulated entity and against agency action no matter how important. this amendment is also a solution in search of a problem because as professor levin has testified, quote, the field of administrative law has worked out a variety ever political and judicial oversight mechanisms to maintain a delicate balance of power between the branches of

government, end quote. administrative action based on an ambiguous statute could be challenged by an affected party and these checks apply to judicial review. finally, this measure would apply equally to regulatory and deregulatory actions, the clean air director and senior attorney for the natural resources defense council warns that if an administration more i had logicically opposed to regulation wibs to go to the conflicts and gaps in federal statutes, it may adopt protective regulations permissible under federal law. mr. chair, i ask that because this is a bad amendment, i ask that it be opposed. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from virginia has three minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 33, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and a member opposed, each will have control of five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: h.r. 5 requires the office of information and regulatory affairs to provide guidelines to agencies how to conduct regulatory activities. this is a great bill and i support the bill. we simply want to add a time line to this bill so we give proper incentive, notification and time to properly institute what this new law would do. the regulatory activities engaged in this bill in information and regulatory affairs deals with, these regulatory activities need to have cost and benefit assessments in their economic

and risk assessments and harm ization of the rules. conforming rulemaking to the notice and comment requirements and formal rulemaking requirements in the administrative procedures act as well as the application to rulemaking proceedings under what is called the a.p.a. these guidelines required by the underlying bill are moving the country in the right direction and will ensure that agencies produce thoughtful, comprehensive and well vetted regulations. the amendment we offer today to h.r. 5 requires the office to issue guidance within 270 days. this is a right balance to have them encouragement but at the same time not allowic them to inger in and it provides the proper balance and we have offered this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: i move to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is in opposition to the amendment? mr. johnson: yes, im. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: all right. i rise in opposition to the chaffetz amendment. this amendment establishes a deadline of 270 days, a magical number of days for some reason, no reason given for that being the number of days. but that's what they give to the office of information and regulatory affairs to issue guidelines pursuant to title 1 of this bill. why 270 days? well, i think i can answer that question. ey know that oira is not equipped to sufficiently deal

with regulations within that same amount of time period. we have had this budget cutting going on. been attacking the federal regulatory authorities throughout the entire six years that republicans have been in control of this house. and so they've done six years orth of hobbling, oira and now going to impose a 270-day requirement. that's like asking someone who you have handicapped to run in a relay race that you know they can't win. to begin with, oira which typically has fewer than 50 employees serves as a bottleneck of the promulgation of economically significant rules as reported last year by public citizen. moreover as a group of the leading scholars have noted, the

accountability act is unusually ambitious and crammed with details that are impossible to summarize that will further ocify the rulemaking process in the form of better rules. many of these new procedures ask oira with making or tasking them with making new determinations and expanded review of informal rulemaking. so in addition to hobbling over the last six years and imposing a deadline, an arbitrary number of days, you are going to heap additional requirements upon them without increasing their staff that you have already cut. of iven the sheer breadth these requirements, it may be impossible to comply with the amendment. this

so accordingly, i rise to oppose the amendment. and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah, who has 3 1/2 minutes left. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. certainly, the gentleman from georgia, does not oppose the number 270. it is a buff number. give them six months to promulgate a rule. this is 50% more than that. it is roughly nine months. if a woman can give birth in that amount of time, they can put together some rules in that amount of time. we think it is properly balanced. ask. 50% more than we so certainly they can accomplish that. but i would like to yield to the chairman of our committee, mr. demrat. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i want to thank

the chairman and title 1 of the bill contains several key requirements for the office of information and regulatory affairs to put out guidelines that all agencies can follow and these include guidelines on cost benefit analysis, risk assessment, consistency with the information quality act and good guidance practices, since the importance of these issues and the need for swift and effective implementation of reform, the amendment's institution of 270-day deadline for the issuance of these guidelines is reasonable and constructive and urge support. mr. chaffetz: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has two minutes remaining. mr. johnson: we need better regulations and therefore we have got to provide more requirements or on ira with respect to the regulations it issues, while at the same time

claiming that regulations are bad and unelected bureaucrats and all of this kind of stuff like that. we need better regulations and better laws to allow them to regulate better and then going to give them 270 days, which is a little more than what we give the average agency. well, i thank you for that, but not have increased the manpower of the agency with the new requirements you are stacking on them and doesn't make sense. the real reason for this amendment is to help foster the gumming up of the federal regulatory system. that's what it is all about. a lot of small ways of doing that, heaping it on top of the larger measure, which is itself to rulemaking.

this is a game and the american people are the big losers and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. chaffetz: we have no additional speakers. but i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. chaffetz: i thank my colleague from georgia and i know he is opposed to the bill. it is reasonable to give a time frame as to when they are to issue this. i think it is reasonable. to the gentleman's point about the staffing, we don't give into that granular detail here but left to the office of management and budget. those decisions have been made by the obama administration. they will need to take into account the staffing levels and how o.m.b. will determine

whether they need more or less staff. but i would support the idea if they are overwhelmed with issues, let's make sure they are properly staffed. this is an important agency. we have to make sure they are functioning properly and supportive of that. it's reasonable to offer that time line and i appreciate the support of the chairman on this and urge the passage of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition?

mr. chabot: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i offer this amendment to address a longstanding problem, agencies not fully analyzing the effects of regulations on small businesses. under the current regulatory flexibility act, an earg may certify a rule if it expects that the rule will not have and m quoting, a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, end quote. when an agency certifies a rule, it does not need to perform a

regular tower flexibility analysis. this provision makes sense because not every rule affects small businesses. unfortunately agencies appear to be abusing this provision. according to a recent study, agencies only prepare analysis for approximately 8% of rules finalized between 1996 and 2012. a recent example of this occurred with the controversial of the waters of the united states rule. the environmental protection agency and the army corps of engineers certified that rule despite the significant and direct consequences for farmers and ranchers and home builders, most of those are small businesses. although the small business administration chief counsel for advocacy sent a letter stating that the certification was improper and urging them to withdraw the rule, the agencies

ignored the chief counsel and proceed to finalize it any way. this amendment addresses this problem by requiring agencies to include and i'm quoting my amendment, an economic assessment or a summary thereof that is sufficiently detailed to support the agency's certification, unquote. this will be published in the federal register as part of the detailed statement and certification for the proposed rule. this approach mirrors the one used in the national environmental policy act. when an agency finds a project to have no significant impacts on the environment, it is required to provide an environmental assessment or summary of it. since agencies are required to provide a threshold analysis when they issue a finding of no significant impact for actions that could affect the environment, it makes sense to extend the same type of requirement to rules that could affect small businesses.

and small businesses, after all, are the folks that are responsible for creating 2/3 or about 70% of the new jobs created nowadays. anything that burdens these small businesses is bad for the economy and job creation. this particular amendment, i think, improves the underlying legislation and makes sense. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will further strengthen and ensure that agencies' decisions are supported by data. nd i would reserve. mr. johnson: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. mr. chairman, this rule or this amendment would require agencies to provide a detailed economic

assessment economic assessment prior to certifying that a rule -- prior to certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. i oppose this bill for a number of reasons. number one, it forces agencies to prove a negative. the negative being that it will -- have a significant bookmark that for a secretary. a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. so, you know, i mean, proving a negative, that's always very difficult to do, that it won't do this. certainly very difficult. but then when you give the decision maker a vague and ambiguous frame of reference like significant, what does significant economic impact mean? it means different things to different people. that's vague and ambiguous. it allows for unbridled

discretion by an unelected bureaucrat to use that term that my friends like to use. but in this instance, i'm using it with respect to a newly bureaucratludocratic like, say, linda mcmahon, at the small business administration, a billionaire. give that to, you know, a bureaucrat such as that, and let them decide whether or not it has a significant economic impact, they're going to say, yes, it has a significant economic impact, they're going to do it every time. because that's their agenda. they support, they are a big pro-business, pro-big business agenda. that's what they represent. so that's how they would rule. when you add that the got to be a substantial number of small businesses, well, what is a

substantial number? is that 10%, 20%, 50%? it's up to whoever the decision maker is. the unelected bureaucrat. so we see the set-up. i think the american people understand what this amendment seeks to do. it requires agencies to provide a detailed economic assessment of the economic impacts of a proposed or final rule prior to certifying that the rule will not have a substantial or have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. title 3 of h.r. 5, substantially increases agencies' responsibilities with respect to rulemaking, including a requirement to supply a detailed statement that includes the factual and legal basis of the reasons why an agency has determined that a proposed or final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. boy, you can just chase your

tail all around for days trying to meet that standard. this onerous measure will force agencies to expend already strained resources and incur considerable cost to implement the bill. also giving corporations an opportunity to contest these arbitrary decisions if they go the right way in court. unsurprisingly, the congressional budget office estimated that an identical version of this legislation considered last congress would cost $55 million over the 2015 -2020 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. by requiring agencies to quantify the economic effects that a rulemaking will have on small businesses, which may be unknowable in some cases, this amendment may task agencies with providing an economic report on a counterfactual hypothetical basis. this requirement will do little

to ease compliance costs or promote small business development or growth. and more likely will lead to regulatory avoidance and ocification and less small business activity because the big businesses are going to be allowed to crowd them out. so accordingly, i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, who has two minutes remaining. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be brief. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. then i'm going to invite my colleague to -- from virginia, to respond. just a couple of quick points. first of all, relative to this significant economic impact language that my distinguished colleague from georgia is talking about, that's already in the existing law, so we're not changing anything there. we're not saying it, it already says that in the existing law.

both the bureaucrats and the courts are used to determining what the terminology like significant means, under the rule or regulation or the law. just as what a reasonable man is . a reasonable -- reasonable is quite common throughout the legal structure. we're also not giving discretion to ms. mcmahon, the soon to be head of the s.b.a. it's to the chief counsel and he's independent. i would now like to yield to our chairman, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his amendment. title 3 of the bill contains important reforms to make sure agencies finally take seriously congress' directive to write rules with flexible accommodations for small businesses. the source of most of our nation's job creation.

congress' demandses for flexibility began with the regulatory accountability act during the 1980's but agencies have never fully complied. one of the key ways agencies have skirted the law's requirements have been to certify their way out of any need to actually provide flexibility by finding that a proposed or final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. this amendment puts the brakes on an inadequately substantiated certification by requiring certifications to include economic assessment details sufficient to support the certifications. i support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you. so, it's already covered in current law, so why do we need this amendment? well, it's a messaging piece, to be able to say to the listening audience that we support small business. well, gosh, i think we've answered that question here on

this side, whether or not they really do support small business. it's clear that they support big business. and that's what this amendment is going to help facilitate. without adding to the overall bill. for that reason, i ask that we oppose it. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in . rt a of house report 115-2 for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house

eport 115-2. ms. velazquez: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. for five minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the regulartory -- regulatory flexibility act has reduced regulatory costs by $130 billion since 1998. however, it could do better. the amendment i am offering will improve this process. however, unlike the underlying bill, my amendment is actually aligned with the regional statute, which was created to protect the unique needs of small businesses in the regulatory process.

not to stop regulations. my amendment is also much more cost effective to the taxpayers, as the underlying bill creates a massive and unnecessary government bureaucracy. it should be noted that my amendment is based on bipartisan legislation from a previous congress which the committee reported by a recorded vote of 26-0. the amendment makes improvements to the most significant deefficientsy -- deficiencies facing the regulatory flexibility act, without the overly broad changes contained in the underlying bill. this includes making sure that agencies live up to their obligations, to retrospectively review the burdens of existing rules on small businesses. the g.a.o. has reported on numerous occasions that agency compliance with this requirement was poor.

my amendment holds the agencies more accountable by requiring them to report the results of their reviews to congress annually. my amendment also takes steps to make analysis more detailed, so that agencies cannot ignore the -- and simply certify that a le has no significant im-- economic impact on small businesses. ensuring this mat already ensure that agencies are required to provide a more factual basis for such certifications, rather than just a sentence which dismisses the concerns of small firms. but the most important aspect of my amendment is what it does not do. unlike h.r. 5, my amendment does not create a new government-wide bureaucracy. or foist a truckload of new responsibilities on the office of advocacy, which only has a $9

million budget. for instance, h.r. 5 requires the office to approve -- it requires the office of advocacy to approve size standards, a function already handled by the s.b.a. a s is like creating cafeteria next to the cafeteria. it's rickdy -- it's ridiculous. this is a complete waste of taxpayer resources and will ironically take the office of advocacy away from its core mission of monitoring regulations. also, another aspect that is very important, what this is setting the office of advocacy to fail. they don't have the expertise. they do not have the resources.

in addition, h.r. 5 imposes the final process across the entire government. i will say that again. across the entire government. including all independent agencies. so much for fiscal responsibility. there is another complete waste of taxpayer resources and it will further limit the office of advocacy's ability to weigh in on the most important matters affecting small businesses. instead, my amendment makes the targeted changes to the thing that small businesseses have called for over the last five years. in doing so, it is cost effective and responsible to the taxpayers. i urge members to vote yes on my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield myself such time as i may consume. just a couple of points. first, before speaking in opposition to this amendment, i would note that the ranking member, ms. velazquez, and myself, worked very much in a bipartisan and cooperative manner on a whole range of issues, we've done that when she chaired the committee and i was the ranking member and we do that now that i'm the chair and she's the ranking member and i want to commend her for that cooperation, we've actually got a lot of things done in the small business committee, on behalf of small businesses all across the country in both democratic and republican districts. i would also note that this particular language which ines 5 title 3 s our h.r. with her version, she mentioned hers is bipartisan and ours is

as well. mr. cuellar was a principal co-sponsor of this particular legislation, so by definition, it's bipartisan and i would also note that we have dealt with this a number of times over the years and we have included a significant number of democratic amendments already in our underlying bill as well. so it truly is bipartisan. and the gentlelady from new york's amendment would essentially strike title 3 of the bill and it would replace it with alternative language. while i'm hartened that she agrees that the regulatory flexibility act needs to be improved, this amendment does not go far enough to address most federal agencies disregard for small businesses and we know that the bureaucracy does disregard small businesses time

and time again and that's why we feel so strongly about this bill. ms. velazquez' amendment includes some of the reforms that the current title has but fails to include many other ones. her amendment does not close the loophole that the i.r.s. uses. it does not provide additional opportunities for small businesses to provide input on proposed rules through the small business advocacy review panel process and does not require the chief counsel to issue government-wide r.f.a. regulations. without these, agencies would continue to develop their own interpretations of the r.f.a. to avoid complying with the law's requirements. america's small businesses deserve more meaningful reform

than and the current title 3 does just that. and i urge my colleagues to respectfully oppose this amendment. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york for 30 seconds. ms. velazquez: i yield back and i thank the chairman for being so kind, but let me just say approach s one, the is not balanced and going to impact the very agencies that you are empowering with so many responsibilities. i would like to ask you if you adding all this new responsibilities that will require manpower and expertise that is needed, how much money is included in the authorizing rocess for this office to work properly? and with that, i yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio for his two remaining minutes. mr. chabot: i don't think we need to increase the bureaucracy or hire a whole lot more people to implement this. and we have plenty of people right now who work for the federal government and i'm sure we could shift some resources around and people can work harder and smarter and we can be leaner and meaner. the bureaucracy has grown far too large over the years and the money comes from somewhere and it comes from the hardworking taxpayers of our country and a lot of those folks are small business folks and they are the folks that have gotten the short end of the stick far too often. this legislation and hopefully this congress will move legislation that comes out of this body in a direction rather than throwing rodblocks in the

pathway of small businesses, we are going to help them. and the fact is the government does exist and to the extent we can help them, we ought to do that. but most of the small businesses i talk to is say get the heck off of my back and quit telling me what to do when i know what is best. we don't need any bureaucracy, but we do need some regulations but overregulate now and hopefully this is one step in scaling back on the overregulation that comes out of washington and like a wet blanket over small businesses all over the country and wet blanket all over the economy. let's get the economy moving and make america great again and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in art a of house report 115-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. peterson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 115-2 offered by mr. peterson of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment. this amendment will prohibit

federal agencies from using taxpayer dollars to advocate on behalf of a rule or generate comments to overwhelm the record with one point of view. the g.a.o. report documents how the e.p.a. created the campaign to generate comments in support of the waters of the u.s. and this is not how government rulemaking should work. the comment period should be a time for agencies for agencies to hear from the public about what's good, what's bad, what needs to be fixed on a proposed rule. in my opinion, agencies too often take laws passed by congress and turn them into something that is unrecognizable. that is why this amendment is needed and has the support of the american farm bureau federation, the national association of wheat growers and the national association of home builders, amongst others. this is a commonsense amendment that will improve the bill and i

urge my colleagues to vote in support and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: i respectfully claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chair. i oppose this amendment which would prohibit federal agencies from making any public communications that would promote a pending regulatory action. we can all agree that the rulemaking process should be transparent, flexible and accountable to the public. but rather than achieve this goal, my colleague's amendment would decrease transparency in the rulemaking process and burden agencies with little corresponding benefits to the public. a variety of statutes including the administrative procedures act and agency specific statutes already prescribe the methods that agencies may communicate to

the public with regard to proposed rules. agencies should and indeed are required by law to communicate why rules are beneficial to the public. for example, in 2014, the department of defense proposed a rule to protect service members and their families from predatory lending schemes. in a press release discussing the rule, the defense department highlighted the benefits of the rule, such as this proposed rule would better protect active duty service members and their families from excessive debt. this plain language explanation of the proposed rule would be flatly prohibited by this amendment. indeed, there is little that an agency could discuss about a pending rule that would not be considered to be promoting the rule within the meaning of this amendment. in the context of the proposed

deregulatory actions, in 2003, the bush administration officials posed with chainsaws and sizzors to promote efforts to cut red tape. it's doubtful this form of public communication would be permissible under this amendment. -- y the way, that's just the bush administration first with a chainsaw and sizzors going after regulations reminds me of what we are doing here today. in the context of a veto threat in a similar proposal last congress, the obama administration stated that similar requirements would prevent agency from efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities and potentially lead to a less-informed public. i oppose this amendment and i

urge my colleagues to do so as well. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota for four minutes. mr. peterson: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i support his amendment. title 1 contains critical reforms first introduced in the 112th congress. these reforms have one ultimate goal to ensure a fair rulemaking process and keeps unnecessary costs to a minimum. the gentleman's amendment, of which i am a co-sponsor responds to an extreme rulemaking abuse that played out in the 11th congress. and that was the e.p.a.'s advocacy campaign to skew the information submitted and promote lobbying on behalf of its massive proposed waters of

the united states rule. it is one thing to open the agency's doors impartially. is quite another to promote that supporting the agency's view and to advocate lobbying of congress to support that view. this makes sure the biased activity manifest in the united states waters rulemaking never ever happens again. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia 2 1/2 minutes. mr. johnson: i rise for purposes of submitting for the record, the statement of my friend, congressman gerald connolly from irginia who if he were here -- the chair: request will be covered under general leave. mr. johnson: and i will read a bit of the statement. for the record he wanted to be

known that agency employees are barred under appropriations bills from engaging in publicity or propaganda. agency employees are specifically barred from engaging in substantial grassroots lobbying campaigns when those campaigns are encouraging the public to pressure members of congress an administration or department or legislative proposals. and with that, i submit that for the record. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota for three minutes. mr. peterson: do you have further speakers? i have no further speakers and i just want to say that some of

this has been passed legislation around here. sometimes what comes back, you don't recognize what you have passed legislatively. this bill and this amendment will help solve that problem to some extent. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment, support the bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 pin