Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC


Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to first thank, if I can, the author of this piece of legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky, Geoff Davis. Mr. Davis has distinguished himself among, not only our colleagues, but also, I believe, his strong support of free enterprise and the people of Kentucky in doing his job, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here to help in that endeavor today.

I believe that excessive government regulations are a significant barrier to the creation of private sector jobs in America today. This Congress has made job creation a priority. As a matter of fact, we had the minority leader down talking just a few minutes ago about job creation and the priority that it needs to represent. And as a result, we must review regulations which stand in the way of not only having more jobs, but also the overuse of rules and regulations that prohibit and add to jobs and job creation.

That proposal that I believe we need to look at is whether the benefits outweigh any potential economic harm that might come.

My amendment requires the agencies submitting the report on a proposal Federal rule to include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of its implementation and to specify whether those jobs will come from the public or the private sector.

This assessment would be part of the cost benefit analysis. It would be required to be submitted to the Comptroller General and made available to each Member of the House prior to our consideration of the rule.

I believe that what we are doing here today is positive, not only a benefit to the country in terms of recognizing that rules and regulations are burdening our economic engine, but also we are doing something about it here today, and I'm very, very proud to be here in support of this.

Earlier this year, I introduced House Resolution 72, and the House passed it with a strong bipartisan vote in February. My bill required authorizing committees in the House to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations through hearings this year and to report back to the House with their findings.

The REINS Act today before us is an extension, I believe, of H. Res. 72 and is an important measure to ensure that the government does not compete against the free enterprise system. And if it does, Congress should understand that at the time that we pass our laws.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this important addition.

I reserve the balance of my time.


Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I believe that the case which we're bringing forth today to Congress is
that we believe that jobs should be priority number one for this United States Congress and for the American people--not just the middle class, but investors and people who want to have great jobs in this country, for us to be competitive with the world. For us to do that, we need to recognize that people in Washington, D.C., who probably wouldn't recognize the free enterprise system if they saw it put rules and regulations on people; they don't understand the business; they don't understand how they operate; and they sure as heck don't understand why it's important to have a free enterprise system, one which is nimble and prepared and ready for competition.
I spent 16 years without missing a day of work in the private sector prior to coming to Congress. During those 16 years, I learned firsthand about how rules and regulations by the Federal Government and others can impede not only us and our ability to add jobs but perhaps more importantly, for us to be competitive. And I want to know today those people who will support us making sure that we look at a rule and regulation and understand what the impact on jobs would be.

That's what this vote will be. All Members will have an opportunity to come down to say, We think that there should be a consideration or should not be a consideration, at the time a rule will be written by an agency, what will be the impact of that rule. It would elude me to understand why someone would not want to include that as part of a cost benefit analysis.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.

I yield back the balance of my time.


Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Back to top