Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015.

Rather than bringing sunshine into the rulemaking process, it throws an after-midnight shade on this process. In fact, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act pulls the plug on regulations that are in place to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the people.

This misnomered legislation should be renamed the ``Bedtime for Consent Decrees and Settlements Act.'' Another great name is the ``Leave Volkswagen Alone Act.''

Title I of H.R. 712 imposes numerous burdensome procedural requirements on agencies and courts, requirements that are designed to hamstring and to ultimately prevent the use of consent decrees and settlements that ensure the enforcement of the law.

Proponents of this provision argue that it is necessary because Federal agencies collude with pro-regulatory plaintiffs to advance a mutually agreed-upon regulatory agenda through the use of consent decrees and settlement agreements.

According to my Republican colleagues, this so-called sue and settle litigation specifically allows agencies to skirt the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to dictate the contents of an agency rulemaking or to bind agency action. Sadly, however, the majority has not put forth a single dust particle of credible evidence to support this claim.

To the contrary, consent decrees and settlement agreements are important tools in ensuring the timely compliance with statutory deadlines that have been put in place by Congress to protect the environment and the public's health and safety.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported in December of 2014 that there is zero evidence indicating that agencies collude with public interest groups in bringing these consent decrees, as the majority has often alleged.

In its report, the GAO referred to these lawsuits as ``deadline suits'' because they simply compel agencies to take statutorily required actions within a designated timeframe.

The GAO also found little evidence that deadline suits determine the substantive outcome of agency action because agency officials stated that they have not and would never agree to settlements in a deadline suit that finalize the substantive outcome of the rulemaking or declare the substance of the final rule.

Earlier this year, Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate for Public Citizen, also clarified during the legislative hearing on H.R. 712: ``All of the settlements scrutinized by GAO pursuant to the EPA's rulemaking authority under the Clean Air Act went through the public notice and comment process, allowing all members of the public an opportunity to comment on the rule before it is finalized.''

This finding confirms that there is no credible evidence supporting the proposition that Federal agencies engage in backroom deals with pro-regulatory groups in order to circumvent the EPA or to substantively bind the Agency in a subsequent rulemaking.

In the absence of actual evidence of collusion between Federal agencies and plaintiffs, H.R. 712 addresses a nonexistent problem through a series of requirements that are designed to undermine the rule of law by preventing the enforcement of statutes that have been passed by Congress to protect the public and that are designed to slow down agency action and bust the door wide open to almost anyone who wants to impede agency action by intervening in these actions.

Now, is it the working people, small-business owners, or retirees who are asking for this kind of relief from regulations that protect the health, safety, and well-being of them? No. It is not the people. It is the big corporations that want this legislation to pass.

For example, H.R. 712 would allow for nearly any private party to intervene in a consent decree, revealing the legislation's true purpose, which is to stack the deck in the industry's favor in order to avoid the enforcement of the law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the only reason for the unprecedented delay in agency rulemaking--the so-called diminishing transparency of the regulatory process--is that my Republican colleagues have argued that regulatory transparency is not important with regard to public participation in the rulemaking process.

In a recent rulemaking process, millions of Americans commented on a single proposed rulemaking. It represented the largest public response in history to any request for public comment in a Federal rulemaking. Just last year alone, this extensive activity hardly suggests an agency process that is shrouded in secrecy and in need of reform.

So with there being no evidence that consent decrees and settlements are collusion between Federal agencies and pro-human interest groups, there simply is no need for this legislation.

I would ask my colleagues to vote against this, to vote it down.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, when mankind first came upon this planet, I guess we were in caves and cavemen didn't have many rules. It was only the strong who survived. It was every man for himself. There were no morals about things, whether or not it is right or wrong. It is just a matter of your own personal survival. That was caveman thinking, and, unfortunately, we still have caveman thinking in the 21st century because we have a crowd that says that we should not have any rules of human conduct.

Isn't it a fact that America is what it is now because of the rules that have been put in place to foster prosperity and freedom? That is what our government has done. It has been government of, by, and for the people.

There has been a movement over the last 30, 40 years to turn people against government. This mantra is that government is too big, we don't need any rules to govern human conduct, let everything work itself out, and the free market system will make it rain for everybody.

Well, we have seen, after 30, 40 years of practicing that free market way of thinking, that it doesn't work. Here we are still trying to cut the rules that guarantee the health, safety, and well-being of working people, of small business, of elderly people, and children.

This is what this legislation is about, is gutting the rulemaking process. This is one of many attempts, incessant attempts, by my friends on the other side to try to cut government so that their friends in big business on Wall Street can make it rain for the rest of us. They don't make it rain for anybody but themselves. They put all of the profits in their pockets. They become billionaires. We have had a shift of wealth away from the middle class and working people in this country. Let's stop it from happening.

Oppose this misguided legislation, H.R. 712.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to H.R. 712.

H.R. 712 would significantly delay and possibly stop the Federal rulemaking process by making it easier for regulated industries and well-funded antiregulatory entities to delay or prevent agency action and prohibiting any rule from being finalized until certain information is posted online for 6 months.

This assault on the regulations is based on the false premise that Federal regulation stifles economic growth and job creation. My amendment confronts this fallacious assumption by excepting from H.R. 712 all rules that the Office of Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation.

As with many other deregulatory bills we have considered this Congress, the proponents of H.R. 712 argue that it will grow the economy, create jobs, and increase America's competitiveness internationally, but we cannot pretend that this politicized legislation is about economic growth or American prosperity.

As I have noted during the consideration of each of the antiregulatory bills that we have considered in the 114th Congress, there is simply no credible evidence in support of the reiteration of so-called job-killing regulations undermining economic growth. Zero. The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that unemployment has fallen to 5 percent despite Republican obstruction of everything that Democrats have put forward that would grow the economy.

While there is more work to do to grow the economy and help our Nation's middle class, there have been 69 straight months of private sector job growth. That is 13.7 million private sector jobs created amidst a regulatory system that is pro-worker, pro-environment, pro- public health, and pro-innovation.

And to those who would brush aside these strong employment figures, the Department of Labor has also reported that claims for unemployment benefits have dropped to the lowest levels in over 40 years.

While I would submit that regulations passed during the Obama administration have had a largely positive effect on sustainable economic growth, the reality is that there is little correlation between regulations and the economy.

Don't just take my word for it. Take the word of the San Francisco and New York Federal Reserve Banks, which found zero correlation between employment and regulation. Take the word of The Washington Post, which gave two Pinocchios to industry estimates of the cost of regulations earlier this year. Take the word of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which has debunked claims that regulations have a trillion-dollar cost to the economy.

Mr. Chairman, we need real solutions to help real people, not another thinly veiled handout to large corporations. I ask that my colleagues support my amendment to protect jobs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, they talk about all of the regulations that have been promulgated during the Obama administration as if the Obama administration is the only administration that has promulgated rules of conduct.

Certainly we have had rules associated with the unveiling of the very successful Affordable Care Act. There were a lot of rules put into place to prevent insurance companies from taking advantage of people.

Preexisting conditions are outlawed. All of these are regulations that were associated with the Affordable Care Act. We have parents being able to keep their kids on their insurance up to the age of 26 and no discrimination between men and women.

Those were rules that have stimulated jobs in America because 22 million people who did not have access to the healthcare system now have access to it. More jobs have arisen because of that. That is a direct result of regulations.

The same thing with Dodd-Frank, which protects people from Wall Street overreach. Those rules have created opportunities for small businesses to come in and start creating real jobs in America.

So rules are good for our society. This legislation cuts that ability to create wealth for everyone else. So I would ask that this amendment be approved by my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the Jackson Lee amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 712 imposes a 6-month moratorium before a rule can take effect, unless the rule either:

(1) qualifies under the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for notice and comment, which applies ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of the reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest;'' or

(2) if the President issues an executive order determining that the rule is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency, necessary for the enforcement of the criminal laws, necessary for national security, or issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement.

The amendment simply strikes ``imminent'' from H.R. 712, so that a rule that prevents a threat to health or safety or other emergency would qualify under the bill's exception.

As the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--an organization representing more than 150 labor, scientific, research, good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups--observes, the bill's moratorium will put on hold for 6 months ``the benefits of critically needed regulations, whether measured in lives saved, environmental damage averted, or money saved.''

This 6-month delay would be in addition to the already time-consuming process by which rules are promulgated.

Why should a rule intended to protect public health and safety be held up for 6 months simply because the anticipated harm the rule addresses is not imminent? Shouldn't we look to try to foresee what is going to happen?

That is what this amendment will enable, if this legislation passes. I will ask my colleagues to support this very much commonsense amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, opposition is premised upon the notion that we just can't trust a Federal employee who is charged with overseeing the protection of Americans through the rule process. We don't believe, on the other side, that a person can be conscientious and dutiful about trying to help people.

Instead, they want to make it such that you can't issue a rule. You will gum up the process by extending it out for so long--another 6 months--despite the fact that the rule, as foreseen by a Federal employee--and it has gone through the notice and comments part of the Administrative Procedure Act, which has worked for decades. You just simply don't want government to issue a rule that can protect people.

Why? Because it gets in the way of some big corporations' profits. That is what this is really all about, protecting profits at the expense of the health, safety, and well-being of the people. We don't trust a government worker to be able to provide good service to the people by promulgating rules that protect people.

It is crazy, but that is what we are dealing with.

I would ask that the very reasonable Jackson Lee amendment be favored by my colleagues in this body.

Please vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, noes 173, not voting 16, as follows: [Roll No. 12] AYES--244 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Babin Barletta Barr Barton Benishek Bilirakis Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Blum Bost Boustany Brady (TX) Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burgess Byrne Calvert Carney Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Chaffetz Clawson (FL) Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comstock Conaway Cook Costello (PA) Cramer Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Curbelo (FL) Davis, Rodney Denham Dent DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Dold Donovan Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers (NC) Emmer (MN) Farenthold Fincher Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Garrett Gibbs Gibson Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Griffith Grothman Guinta Guthrie Hanna Hardy Harper Harris Hartzler Heck (NV) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Hice, Jody B. Hill Holding Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Hurd (TX) Hurt (VA) Issa Jenkins (KS) Jenkins (WV) Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jolly Jones Jordan Joyce Katko Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kline Knight Labrador LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Latta LoBiondo Long Loudermilk Love Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis MacArthur Marchant Marino Massie McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers McSally Meadows Meehan Messer Mica Miller (FL) Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Mulvaney Murphy (PA) Neugebauer Newhouse Noem Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Paulsen Pearce Perry Peterson Pittenger Pitts Poe (TX) Poliquin Pompeo Posey Price, Tom Ratcliffe Reed Reichert Renacci Ribble Rice (SC) Rigell Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney (FL) Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce Russell Salmon Sanford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Stefanik Stewart Stivers Stutzman Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Tipton Trott Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Weber (TX) Wenstrup Westerman Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Young (IN) Zeldin Zinke NOES--173 Adams Aguilar Ashford Bass Beatty Becerra Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Bonamici Boyle, Brendan F. Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardenas Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Clyburn Cohen Connolly Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio DeGette Delaney DelBene DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Duckworth Edwards Ellison Engel Eshoo Esty Farr Fattah Foster Frankel (FL) Fudge Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Graham Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hahn Hastings Heck (WA) Higgins Himes Hinojosa Honda Hoyer Huffman Israel Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kildee Kilmer Kirkpatrick Kuster Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lee Levin Lewis Lieu, Ted Lipinski Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Lujan, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Matsui McCollum McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Moulton Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Nolan Norcross O'Rourke Pallone Pascrell Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Pingree Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Rangel Rice (NY) Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Ryan (OH) Sanchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Sherman Sinema Slaughter Speier Swalwell (CA) Takai Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tonko Torres Tsongas Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters, Maxine Watson Coleman Welch Wilson (FL) Yarmuth NOT VOTING--16 Chu, Judy Cleaver DeLauro Jackson Lee Johnson, E. B. Kennedy Kind King (IA) McDermott Miller (MI) Nugent Rush Sires Smith (WA) Titus Webster (FL) Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack) (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source