Providing for Consideration of 427, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015; Providing for Proceedings During the Period from July 30, 2015 Through September 7, 2015; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. This rule provides for a robust amendment debate on an issue of critical national importance. This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015.

The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, in addition to receiving amendment testimony.

This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule. There were 18 amendments total submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of those submitted, I am pleased to say that the full House will debate and vote on 10 of those amendments.

This legislation also went through regular order in the committee. During the committee markup, eight amendments were debated and voted on, including one I offered and that the committee had actually agreed to.

This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee staff in bringing forward H.R. 427.

I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation because, when we reform our Nation's regulatory system, we will jump-start the engine of our economy; and when our economy gets up and going, our families flourish.

What does this administration produce more than 60 of every day? Here is a hint: It is not jobs. The answer lies in the heart of many woes facing small businesses and established industries.

What they produce every day is regulations. The goal of any regulation should be to achieve a benefit that would not be possible without it, designed in such a fashion that the achieved benefit far outweighs the cost, but our administration has lost sight of this goal, and America's economic engine is paying the price.

Our current Federal Government designs regulations that are often unnecessary and achieve little to no benefit, but at very high cost. The rules have become so skewed that this administration's regulators are at war with American businesses.

Industries such as manufacturing and technology are fighting to compete in a global market, but first, they must survive the regulatory beast that is strangling innovation and growth.

This administration is legislating through regulation yet decries the REINS Act and calls it an unprecedented requirement. When you circumvent Congress and exploit the rulemaking process in order to, one, make law and, two, make law in contradiction to the wishes and needs of the American people, you should expect unprecedented responses.

In just the first 7 days of 2015--just the first 7 days of 2015--the administration unveiled 300 new rules. Over the Memorial Day weekend, the administration quietly published the spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. What it contained was so disheartening to the American people and so destructive to small business that it didn't go unnoticed.

The agenda showed that the Federal departments and agencies have 3,260 rules in the midst right now of the rulemaking process. Unfortunately, it is not just the sheer number of regulations that is astounding; it is also the oppressive cost.

One of these 3,260 rules I mentioned is predicted to be one of the costliest regulations ever put forward, the EPA's national ozone standard. A recent analysis found the cost of this one regulation to be upwards of $140 billion. It will cost my home State of Georgia over 11,000 jobs.

To add insult to injury, the first line of H.R. 427 Statement of Administration Policy states:

The administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective and tailored to further the statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

This is the statement from the administration on why they oppose H.R. 427.

I cannot believe that a single regulation promulgated by this administration with $140 billion of cost was put forward in the most cost-effective manner, and a regulation costing 11,000 jobs in Georgia alone is hardly smart. The Statement of Administration Policy also claims that the underlying legislation would create business uncertainty.

I encourage this administration to use the infamous pen and phone to actually ask businesses what creates uncertainty for them because, when small businesses across the country came to Congress last week as part of National Federation of Independent Business lobbying day, their top legislative priority was regulatory relief. These are small-business owners who sat with us and said: Here is what we are facing in trying to get people jobs.

The 3,000-plus regulations in the works by this administration create the uncertainty, not this body's effort to require agencies to submit the most costly regulations to Congress for approval. The underlying bill applies only to regulations with a $100 million impact or greater.

The American people do not elect this administration's regulators--or any administration's regulators for that matter. They elect us in this body to represent them. This bill allows us to do so properly.

The system is broken. The system has failed the American people. The REINS Act is the first step toward restoring proper order and even sanity toward our regulatory framework.

The administration states that Executive Order No. 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis, but they don't explain why only 7 rules out of the thousands had cost-benefit analysis in 2013 and only 14 rules had that in 2012.

This administration's regulators have stated publicly that they are not going to sit around and wait for Congress--so much for respecting the powers enshrined in our Constitution and, thus, the reason that we need this legislation and why this rule should be approved.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, it has been said--and we have moved beyond the old adage many times--if it moves, regulate it; or, if it exists, to regulate it.

It is an interesting paradigm today because it is time for Washington to focus on creating a regulatory system that is flexible, allowing the market to decide the optimal path to implementation.

Regulations should be expedient and unambiguous, seeking to minimize the uncertainty facing industries and small businesses, and we must encourage innovation and bringing new products and processes not only to market, but to office places everywhere. Outdated regulations should be cleared off of the books, especially those created by those unelected.

As we have been here today--and I have, listening to the arguments--what is amazingly--from our side, I have wanted to talk about regulation and the overreach of many of our branches; the gentleman from Illinois brought it up tremendously, and I have talked about this in the Ninth District of Georgia, where I am from--is that, for many years, I believe Congress decided, for whatever reason, it was much easier to give to agencies to promulgate rules and regulations. They said it is much easier.

In fact, I have even heard from the floor today that we don't have the expertise, and it is much better to do it offsite. I just tend to find that is wrong.

I think it is that Congress has the ability to listen to those experts, to listen to those opinions, and then provide something that unelected bureaucrats do not, and that is have the people who elect us, whom we face every time we go home--when I go to the grocery store, when I go to the ball games, when I go to my church, when I go to the places that I go to and they ask me questions, then they are holding their elected official accountable--then we take that, and we balance that to make good decisions for all, in our districts and in our country.

What is amazing to me today is many of the arguments made today have nothing to do--there are many things we could debate here today, but we are here to debate--by the way, I will just remind everybody--the rule for the REINS Act, not the plethora of other things that would be want to, could have done, should have done--we are here on the issue of regulatory reform. We are here on the REINS Act.

Frankly, if I was part of this administration who wants to create this sort of entrenched Federal bureaucracy, I wouldn't want to talk about regulatory reform either. I would want to talk about anything else. I would want to talk about anything else besides the burden that keeps crushing down from Washington on small-business owners.

Then, of course, as well, there is the argument that did come up, that if you really, really, really want this, undoubtedly, you are really, really, really just wanting to protect big businesses and make dirty--from our perspective, I have heard it before, decrease regulations so that people are put in harm's way or that the environment is worse off.

The reality is that is an old argument and really just needs to go away. I come from the Ninth District of Georgia, in my humble opinion, one of the prettiest places in all the world. Our farmers, our residents all enjoy the clean air. They enjoy the greatness of what we have and the businesses that are a part there and the regulations that, when rightly controlled, help us achieve that American Dream.

There is no one who, voting for this, or even talking against it, would want to actually say: I am voting for this because I want to actually pick up a glass of water that is tainted and drink it, or I want to make it worse for somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule. It says let's bring forward some fiscal sanity and regulatory sanity. Let's put it back in perspective.

I believe the circle of government, when the Founders put it out there, was based on the fact of having the Executive to carry out the laws, the Congress to make those laws, and the judicial branch to interpret those laws. Our country works best when that is in alignment.

What we are asking for is let's bring it back into alignment. Let's take the REINS Act, let's take this step toward bringing some certainty for our businesses because, at the end of the day, when our businesses have certainty, it does affect the people.

It is not a nameless, faceless place on a brick wall somewhere, those business names that we want to talk about business. It is about those people who get in their cars in their neighborhoods and their apartments and their townhomes, and they drive to a place of work, or they walk to their place of work, and they make a paycheck; they earn a living so that they can do the things that I believe that they have wanted to prosper in and to take care of their families and to move that American Dream forward in their life.

It is up to this building to look after them. It is up to what the Republican majority is putting forward to say: We care about all Americans; we care about their ability to earn a living; we care about their growth, and we care about their safety.

Proper regulation done in the proper way is the way to do that. I will always stand on that side.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Source