Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume and rise in opposition to H.R. 427.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of
Scrutiny Act of 2015, otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend the
Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass
and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70
legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take
effect.

Additionally, H.R. 427 imposes deadlines for the enactment of a joint
resolution approving a major rule that could charitably be referred to
as Byzantine.

Under new section 802, the House may only consider a major rule on
the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Last year there were only
13 such days on the legislative calendar compared to the 80 major rules
adopted in 2014.

Furthermore, under new section 801, Congress may only consider such
resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This
process would constructively end rulemaking as we know it.

Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the
aisle contend that we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation,
which would result in the passage of no new regulations, is because
these new regulations are stifling economic growth.

They point to the Obama administration and say that it is because of
regulations enacted or promulgated and placed into operation under the
Obama administration that has caused our economy to be at a point where
they are saying we are not as economically vital as it should be.

What they are failing to tell the American people is that it was the
George Bush Republican economic policies of the first part of this
century that led to the Great Recession, the economic meltdown, the
fact that there were not regulations that prohibited predatory lending,
and other economic policies which contributed to the economic meltdown.
They won't tell you it was because of the lack of regulation that
caused that.

But, indeed, if you go back and talk to Alan Greenspan, who chaired
the Federal Reserve and was a big antiregulatory capitalist, he had to
come back after the Great Recession and admit that he was wrong.

His policies were those that contributed to the economic meltdown,
which, despite horrendous opposition from the opposite side of the
aisle against the policies of Democrats and President Obama, they tried
to obstruct those changes. But they were enacted and, as a result,
America's economic recovery has been quite notable.

Corporate profits are up. Even though productivity is up and wages
are steady, workers have not participated in the upswing in this
election, even though jobs have been created for the last 65 straight
months under the Obama administration.

But the wage growth has been stagnant, and it is because of the
trickle-down Republican policies that have caused this. Now they want
to blame the lack of monies in the pocketbooks and pockets of
Americans, working people, on regulations.

Even if agencies reduce the number of major rules in contemplation of
the bill's onerous requirements, Congress would still lack the
expertise and policy justifications for refusing to adopt a major rule.

As over 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and
administrative law have noted in a letter to the Judiciary Committee
earlier this year, without this expertise, any disapproval is,
therefore, more likely to reflect the political power of special
interests, a potential that would be magnified in light of the fast-
track process.

Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that
Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act
likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of
article I of the Constitution.

As Professor Ron Levin, a leading expert on administrative law, noted
during the hearing on the REINS Act last Congress:

``The reality is that the act is intended to enable a single House of
Congress to control the implementation of the laws through the
rulemaking process. Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of
separation of powers, under which the Constitution entrusts the writing
of the laws to the legislative branch and the implementation of the
laws to the executive branch.''

Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted in the landmark case INS v. Chada:
``The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in
the supervision of officers charged with the execution of laws it
enacts.''

The court also clarified that it was profound conviction of the
Framers that the powers conferred on Congress were the powers to be
most carefully circumscribed. By providing that no law could take
effect without the concurrence of the prescribed majority of both
Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief that legislation should
not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the
Nation's elected officials.

It defies credulity that so many of my Republican colleagues who so
strongly oppose crony capitalism and hold the Framers' intent so dearly
would support H.R. 427, which is a bald attempt by corporations and
special interests to shield themselves from any oversight and, in the
process, shred article I of the Constitution.

Furthermore, Speaker Boehner has also said that the Republican-led,
do-nothing Congress, the most ineffective in modern history--and I will
note that we are getting ready to adjourn tomorrow, a day early, for a
6-week adjournment with all of the work that remains for Congress to
do.

Speaker Boehner also said that the Republican-led, do-nothing
Congress, the most ineffective in modern history, should be judged by
the number of laws it repeals, not the number of laws that it passes.

It therefore follows that this obstruct-at-any-cost approach would
carry over to blocking the most critical agency rulemaking, thereby
threatening agencies' ability to protect Americans' health, safety,
well-being, and economic growth.

Who stands to gain from Republican obstructionism? Corporate giants
that are holding our country hostage through a deregulatory agenda and
political influence that would rival the industrial monopolies from the
past century.

Unsurprisingly, it is many of the same corporations that are
continuing to show record profit margins that are also pushing
deregulation and fewer taxes because they have an ``obsession with
short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation,''
according to Henry Blodget, the CEO of Business Insider.

Unquestionably, H.R. 427 would be nothing short of a catastrophic
event for the everyday Americans who stand to lose the most from the
majority's myopic and reckless treatment of our Nation's regulatory
system.

Mr. Chair, we need real solutions to help real people, not yet
another thinly veiled handout to large corporations, not another messaging bill to
take back to the district over the August recess.

We need legislation that creates middle class security and
opportunity, and we need sensible regulations that protect American
families from financial ruin, that encourage competition, that bring
predatory financial practices to an end, legislation that brings the
United States into conformity with the rest of the developed world's
employment policies by guaranteeing paid sick and parental leave,
legislation that increases our global competitiveness by creating an
affordable higher education, and legislation that increases the minimum
wage from a paltry $7.25 an hour.

I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose
H.R. 427, yet another deregulatory bill in the majority's business-
focused, crony capitalist agenda.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Source