Providing for Consideration of H.R. Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 580

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 712) to impose certain limitations on consent decrees and settlement agreements by agencies that require the agencies to take regulatory action in accordance with the terms thereof, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-37. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1155) to provide for the establishment of a process for the review of rules and sets of rules, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this structured rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2016, or the SCRUB Act. This is a bipartisan measure that provides a fair and reasonable way to find and repeal outdated and inefficient regulations that are still on the books.

It doesn't target any particular type of regulation or industry, but it prioritizes older, expensive rules that are ripe for improvement or may no longer be necessary.

The needs of our economy, small businesses, and American families aren't the same today as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Thus, we should ensure that the rules governing the way we live and work reflect what is best for our country today, not what agencies thought best decades ago.

I thank my colleague from Missouri for introducing this bipartisan solution and his staff for their hard work on this measure.

If you put a piece of paper in the hand of every single person who lives in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, it still wouldn't equal the number of pages in the 2015 Federal Register. In fact, it comes in at a record-setting 82,036 pages. That means there were over 82,000 pages of new rules and regulations proposed just last year.

The Code of Federal Regulations is 235 volumes long, containing 175,000 pages of Federal regulations. Knowing this, it should come as no surprise that Federal regulations impose an estimated burden of $1.86 trillion. That is roughly $15,000 per U.S. household and is higher than combined individual and corporate Federal income taxes.

It is difficult to imagine a scenario where there is nothing in those thousands upon thousands of pages that can't be improved, streamlined, or retired. Unfortunately, American businesses and families bear the burden of compliance, even when a regulation is outdated, ineffective, or just plain unnecessary. The SCRUB Act is a commonsense step toward reducing unnecessary costs for families and businesses, leading to more economic growth and job creation.

If you walked into a grocery store and found hundreds of expired and moldy food on the shelves, you would be shocked. You would be even more horrified if you were forced to purchase and eat them.

In the same way, my constituents in northeast Georgia and men and women all across this Nation are appalled that we don't have an existing process in place to clear duplicative, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations off the pages of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015. This legislative package contains the text of H.R. 712 in title 1; H.R. 1759, the ALERT Act, in title II; and H.R. 690, Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015, in title III. Each of these measures were considered and marked up by the Judiciary Committee and are brought to the floor as reported by the committee.

America's small businesses and job creators need relief from the flood of new regulations and red tape from Washington. Small business owners often cite government regulations as the single most important problem they face today.

A heavy contributor to the burden of new regulation is the use of consent decrees and settlement agreements to bind Federal agencies to issue new rules. Regulators often cooperate with pro-regulatory organizations to advance their mutual agendas in this way.

The device agencies use is simple. An organization that wants new regulations alleges that an agency has violated a duty to declare new rules. The agency and the plaintiff work out a deal under the cover of litigation. The deal puts the agency under judicially backed deadlines to issue the rules.

These deadlines often give the public little opportunity to comment on proposed rules and the White House limited ability to review them. Deals can even require agencies to propose specific regulatory language negotiated by the agency and its regulation-friendly plaintiff.

Those who will be regulated by the new deal typically do not know about these deals until the plaintiffs' complaints and the proposed decrees or settlements are filed in court. By then, it is too late. Frankly, it is just also unfair.

Regulated businesses and individuals are unlikely to be able to intervene in the litigation. The court usually approves the deals before regulated parties have an opportunity to affect whether new regulatory costs will be imposed upon them. These regulated parties could be families, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, or even local governments.

I introduced H.R. 712 to restore transparency, public participation, and judicial review protections to shine a light on one of the worst regulatory abuses in our system today: these ``sue and settle'' agreements.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Consent Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015 puts an end to the abuse of this practice and ensures that those to be regulated have a fair opportunity to participate in the resolution of litigation that affects them.

The bill respects the basic rights of plaintiffs and defendants to manage litigation between them. As a result, the bill offers an effective and balanced remedy.

We must ensure more transparency and scrutiny of consent decrees and settlement agreements that require new regulations. These commonsense reforms are needed to help control the tide of excessive and costly rules.

It is time we get rid of the welcome mat outside the door of regulatory agencies for these suits, under which they can more easily issue expensive and controversial new regulations--policies that oftentimes could never pass Congress--claiming that ``The court made me do it,'' again bypassing our constitutional system. It is not a good idea.

H.R. 712 addresses the weaknesses in the current system while preserving consent decrees as an important mechanism for settling legal disputes. It accomplishes this by increasing participation of affected regulated entities and coregulators in the negotiation in the consideration of decrees and settlements.

The ability of citizens to hold government accountable is an important part of administrative law, but it must be appropriately carried out with transparency and full public participation.

Importantly, H.R. 712 puts an end to a practice that uses taxpayer dollars to allow special interests to abuse the system and force regulators to put out even more regulations.

Title II of H.R. 712, the ALERT Act, continues our work to relieve the regulatory burden on American families by requiring agencies to publicly provide information on planned regulations, estimated compliance costs, and other updates so that those impacted by the new regulations have the information they need to make financial decisions and plan for the future.

Title III of H.R. 712, the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, is another good governing measure that demonstrates this body's commitment to making life better for all Americans. It requires agencies to publish a brief summary of each proposed regulation online and in plain language.

Agencies do not have the right to conduct their business behind closed doors and hide behind an overly complex regulatory system.

Every regulation impacts every American directly or indirectly, and agencies should be held accountable for the regulations they produce and how they communicate the new requirements to those who will be forced to abide by them.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday evening on these measures and heard testimony from the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, the chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, and the Government Operations Subcommittee ranking member.

This combined rule makes every amendment submitted to the Rules Committee in order. Seven amendments to H.R. 712 will be debated on the House floor, and 11 amendments to H.R. 1155 will be considered.

For H.R. 712, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

For H.R. 1155, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

This rule and the underlying legislation represents regular order at its finest. I am proud to see the leadership of Chairman Sessions and Speaker Ryan are reflected in this robust and open process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as has already been said just a little bit earlier on this floor, here we go again. I guess the straw harvest was good this fall because, like my colleague, I was hoping that there would be some stuff changed. Undoubtedly, it is not, because the straw harvest was good, and it is now time to put up straw men when we talk about regulatory reform, and we are back at it again.

I want to comment in just a moment on regular order and the fact that stuff has been talked about.

We have two separate rules today. This is a rule that deals with the regulatory issues and regulatory reforms, two bills, and we have a rule that is going to come up here in just a little bit that deals with repealing ObamaCare and dealing with the heinous issues of Planned Parenthood. That is a separate bill.

I would want to talk about something else too, instead of the regulatory issues that are here, because they do matter, they do create jobs.

As we look at this, the one thing that always comes across, Mr. Speaker, as we think about this, is a very clear choice, especially from constituents all over the country, in my district, in particular, when I think about this.

One of the main arguments against this is that it will burden the government, so it is bad? The problem is, the government right now, through regulatory process, is burdening small business, is burdening families who simply want to be able to get up, go to work, do their job, and be free of unnecessary burdensome regulations.

Again, we want to talk about throwing up the straw man that the Republicans are out here poisoning the air, bad paint, terrible ideas, killing kids. That is not what we are talking about.

Again, the harvest is ripe; the straw is being developed. And instead of talking about getting rid of regulatory process, we are going to talk about, oh, we are taking away safety.

There is no Republican on this side of the aisle that I have ever heard stand from this place, or from anywhere else, and say: I want dirty water. Give me choking air. Give me paint that is bad. Give me products that are terrible. That is not what is ever said. And when that argument is brought up, it simply cheapens and demeans the process.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was just said was that we don't want to have public comments, that you have to answer to public comments, that a government agency would have to answer to public comment. In fact, one of the issues is H.R. 712 actually addresses this because these sue and settlement agreements can take place without the affected party even being in the room or even know it is happening.

Tell me where that is fair. Show me where two people can go in a room and decide what is best for me in a business environment. Show where that is fair. It is not fair and you can't argue that it is.

Public comment to the government is expected, and public comment should be respected before these regulations or these consent decrees are put out.

We all have various roles. The executive branch has their role, and there are places where they meet. And we are appreciative of the work that is done. What is being talked about in these bills is, let's make it more efficient and let's make it better because what we have in Washington is, I would rather see this body take up the policy argument, this body discuss the billions of dollars in costs that are being implemented on businesses, and not the agencies who have no answerability to the public. So when we look at this, these are just the small things. We want to talk about what is actually coming to the floor.

I have the privilege of sharing the Rules Committee with my friend from Washington State, who is going to speak. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind those who are here that the rule's focus here is dealing with helping regulatory reform burden. I do appreciate the opportunity of Republicans too to take the burden off of individuals.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

As this debate has come forward, I want to just point out, as a member of the Rules Committee talking about rules bringing forth the process for which debate will happen, I want to commend Chairman Sessions and the Rules staff and also leadership--the chairman has done a great job of leadership under Speaker Ryan and others--who have brought forth two rules today. I know in the last, probably, about an hour, that has become a little conflated, but this rule deals with regulatory burden. This rule deals with the issue of jobs and job creation.

I, like my friend from Colorado, have had many conversations with many folks in my district, and, yes, it does come around to job creation. One of the ways that you can do that, and one of the ways that we are looking to be able to do this, is to free them up.

According to research that came out from the American Action Forum, the savings from these bills that we are talking about under this rule can save a total of $48 billion annually and save 1.5 billion paperwork hours. If you want to make--and I have run small businesses, just as others in here have. If you want to make your employees more effective, have better contact with customers, come up with new ideas, and do creation, then let them do their jobs and not have to be burdened with government intrusion. This is a savings here.

Now, again, it has been stated over and over again, and we are at the point now we are not going to be able to overcome this, so here is the way. Mr. Speaker, just understand these are the parameters in which we speak.

When Republicans want to stand up, this Republican majority wants to stand up for businessowners and families who get up every day taking care of their families, who go to work, find jobs, get good employment. When we bring up ways that, unfortunately, as the other side characterized it, burdens government, then we are portrayed as wanting to ruin the environment, kill the babies, kill the toys, whatever it is that they want to come up with. This is just a false narrative that needs to cease.

The regulatory nation that we have become, apart from the constitutional process that is set forth by Members elected from their districts to come forward and put forth ideas, give those to the executive branch to carry out, not make up new laws or to enter into consent agreements without the litigant standing party available, is wrong. It is not about anything but fairness. It is about cleaning up government. It is about limiting government. It is about keeping our airways safe. It is about having clean water. It is about having clean air. It is about doing the things that government should be doing in a limited process, not simply a jobs program inside the beltway.

When you have regulators who regulate banks who have never worked in a bank and never gave a loan, that is not right. When you have folks who never get outside of a cubicle but yet are able to, without input many times, decide how farmers who have worked their land for many years are to react, that is not right. This rule today lets us go toward a forward step of doing just that. You see, it is about real people. It is not about bureaucracies.

It is about real people, like Mr. Puckett from Columbus, Mississippi. He has been creating jobs for over 100 years in his family. He has a family-owned brick company. Mr. Puckett attributes the success of his business to hardworking employees and loyal employees. Unfortunately, when I met Mr. Puckett, the conversation was not so optimistic. He testified in the Judiciary Committee in 2014 because his company had just lost 50 jobs as a result of two regulations crafted behind closed doors.

In a nation of over 300 million, 50 jobs may not seem like a lot, but in the town of Columbus, Mississippi, it is the difference between 50 families having food on the table or going hungry. Every State, every congressional district has their Mr. Pucketts. No business has been untouched by the toll of costly and overly burdensome regulations.

This probably, Mr. Speaker, is one of the greatest times to be here and to speak about this because the choice is clear. And you can try to conflate it and talk about other things, but this rule deals with these bills that deal with real jobs, such as Mr. Puckett. It deals with the real priorities of the Republican majority, saying we want to put people back to work, we want to make business more efficient, and we want to have rules and regulations that are smart, sensible, and safe. To say otherwise is not fair for the American people. In fact, it is just a coverup for a society or a governing philosophy that says: Bureaucracy knows best; government knows best; let us just continue to grow.

In fact, it was said earlier today that we have all of these executive orders and all of these other rules that are designed to help streamline regulatory burdens. If that is what they are supposed to be doing, then they are failing because all we do is keep growing and adding costs everywhere we go.

I can also understand my friend's concern about the government having to answer public comments because I guess the EPA didn't want to have to answer to itself when the EPA broke the law with the social media push for the water rules that the GAO just nailed them on.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You can't not want to answer to the American public and then, when you want to influence your own regulatory agenda, send out false narratives and break the law. This is not Doug Collins' opinion or anybody else's. As reported in The New York Times, it is the GAO's.

I understand that is why the system is broken, and that is why the system needs to be fixed. That is why the vote is a ``yes'' on this rule, on bipartisan legislation, by the way, and on legislation that has been bipartisan. This is what we are talking about in this rule.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. When Members come to the floor for this rule, they are voting for a government that becomes more efficient, they are voting for a government that is responsive to those who are being affected, they are voting for those who are responsible for actually being able to do what they are being gifted to do in their communities. That is what this rule does, Mr. Speaker.

In just a few moments, my friend from Georgia will talk about getting this country back in shape and will talk about some other bills we are offering today to free up the American people.

But in this rule, the question is: Are we standing for the Mr. Pucketts of the world, the individuals and the businesses of the world, or, as has been said on the floor today, are we more concerned about burdening a government agency?

I think I know what the answer of the American people is: Government, do what you are supposed to do. Do it within a limited form. Let us be the generation of wealth and income in this country. Let us be the capitalist system that we have brought this country into.

When we do that, then we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. That is what this Republican majority is fighting for. That is what this rule is. I would ask that everyone vote for this rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 580 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source