Providing for Consideration of H.R. Separation of Powers Restoration Act of Providing for Proceedings During the Period From June Through July and Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me the time.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 796, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.

I want to thank not only the chairman, but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), my friend, for introducing this legislation and bringing it through the Judiciary Committee. This is something that we have had hearings on, we have had work done on, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4768. I am glad to see it moving forward today.

The Judiciary Committee discussed these concepts, worked on these concepts, and looked at the whole issue. Frankly, this is one that in many ways, except for the very partisan nature of what we are doing in Congress these days--and it is, and there are things that we disagree on--this one, to me, should really have been one that, frankly, shouldn't be partisan.

In regards to an administrative determination that they will veto it, I am not sure that their machine knows anything else except to send us an administrative statement saying they are going to veto it. I have been on the Rules Committee 1\1/2\ years now, and I think I have seen one bill that they thought maybe we could sign. Now, there is a balance between both, but that doesn't bother me near as much as putting forth policy that actually helps and puts forward ideas that make sense.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act amends the Administrative Procedure Act to overturn two doctrines that call for judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions: the Chevron and Auer doctrines. The legalese description of the bill may sound dry, but its importance cannot be understated. Let's just put it in plain English.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act ensures Federal bureaucrats can't interpret the legality of their own regulations at the expense of hardworking Americans and the separation of powers.

The United States Constitution clearly defines the duties of each branch of government, but today the executive branch far too often acts as a lawmaker or a law interpreter when it is supposed to be a law enforcer. And for this Congressman, this is both parties. I do not want the executive to take this constitutional role of this body. I don't care who sits in the White House. This is not something that should be taking place. It has taken place over time. We have got to understand why this matters.

This is a serious threat to the separation of powers. I believe the administration has gone out of its way to try to ignore or to rewrite what they don't like from up here. The Chevron and Auer doctrines are helping them justify these unacceptable actions.

Executive branches should be seen not as lawmaking authorities, but instead almost as expert advisers or witnesses on regulation. But under the Chevron doctrine, agencies essentially got the power to make policy when Congress either explicitly or implicitly delegated the power.

Under the Chevron doctrine, or the Chevron deference, agencies are essentially free to define the meaning of statutes that they administer, and the courts defer to the agencies' interpretations.

Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, listen here. The courts have set up the Chevron doctrine and have said, basically, this may be what Congress said, and here is what unelected officials have said. We are going to side with them. At what point, in the judicial frame of reference, does that make sense when they are to be the interpreter of the law that has been written in these bodies--in this building-- instead of by those down the street who have decided, in their own infinite wisdom, that they know better than those here?

They may have larger degrees; they may have longer time; they may have studied it forever. That is fine. If they want to make law, let them put their money down and run for Congress. Do not make law from the cubicle, and that is what we are seeing. Unfortunately, the courts have said: We are going to side with the executive in this.

In my opinion, this is out of the realm of what the Constitution actually states. In other words, really, what the courts are saying is, to avoid interpreting the law, they are allowing the agencies that wrote the regulations to be free to play political games and to do whatever they want to do.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act will address this situation. It replaces the current standard of review with a requirement that the courts review challenged agency decisions without their having deference or regard of the agency's legal conclusions. This will ensure that unelected bureaucrats are not left to write and interpret laws in order to achieve political gain at the expense of the American people.

Federal regulations impose more than $1.88 trillion--that is trillion with a T--on the economy. The regulatory burden and the unelected bureaucrats who implement it have spun out of control, and it is the taxpayers of America who are left holding the bag. I am tired of it, and I know the American people are tired of it.

When I go home, one of the first things that is talked about is the overreach and the continuous burden of a bureaucracy that seems to be completely out of control. In northeast Georgia, examples of regulatory burden include everything from ill-conceived requirements for the poultry industry, to new labor requirements that impact manufacturers, to the silica rule's effect on the granite industry in Elberton. It runs across the spectrum. In fact, with that last one, the silica rule, they can't even measure what they are wanting to enforce.

Explain to me how that helps business. Explain to me how that actually helps anyone when you can't measure what you are wanting to actually enforce, except it sounds good, and it is a great press release as I have heard today. The press release is at the expense of American business and is not within the constitutional principles by which we operate.

Part of the problem is that this is just an erosion of power. In fact, last month, the D.C. Circuit Court relied heavily on the Chevron deference to uphold the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order, also known as the net neutrality rule. That rule attempts to regulate our way to new innovation and is a huge blow to Internet freedom.

The FCC said it was acting in the interest of fairness and competition, but, in reality, it stifled fairness and competition. A shocker there, Mr. Speaker. What the government interferes with typically doesn't do what they intend it to do. We can go through program after program and see that.

The FCC rule would slow Internet speeds, increase consumer prices, and hamper infrastructure development, including at my home in northeast Georgia, in my home district. Rather than interpreting the legality of the rule, the court's decision basically said it was acceptable for Federal agencies to rewrite the law to suit political whims. The court deferred to the agency's interpretation of its own rule.

I wish I had the ability to say that with a Federal agency such as, maybe, the IRS. I am just going to write them a little letter and say: I interpret the law differently. I don't owe anything this year. Thanks for asking--and have the court uphold mine. Do you think they would go along with that? No. Of course, this is the same IRS that has one person in control of almost a million people. They have one customer service agent in my district; so I don't think they care, really, about that. You see, if you go back to this right here, it is interpretation. The court said: Interpret your own rules. Do what you want to do.

The Chevron doctrine is bankrupt when it comes to the separation of powers. We have got to get back to a way that this actually does this. This simply does this, and this is not new. This is not something that is unheard of.

Importantly, the bill will also extend this requirement to not only judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, but also to various mini APAs that are scattered throughout the United States Code. For example, the Clean Air Act includes its own individual version of the APA. This bill ensures cases like that can't escape notice.

We need to reverse the course. It is time we stopped diminishing congressional authority and handing the power over to the agencies. It is past time that we restore the checks and balances that our Founders built into this system.

Mr. Speaker, this is where it is understandable. We can have differences of opinion on this floor. In fact, that is what our country was based on. We are going to have differences of opinion and different ways to go about it; but what I cannot understand is, on this floor, when we can't even come together to say we will hold for our own authority--our own congressional, constitutional authority. We say we will happily give it, and let the courts say that the folks who have not been elected and who will be there, maybe, long after we are gone can decide that that is not what Congress really meant, whether it be a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, whether it be a Democratic President or a Republican President.

The Constitution was set up with three branches--three, not one. Just because the one--the executive--feels that because there is inaction on the Hill it can do whatever it wants is no excuse to not go by the law. It is even less of an excuse that the courts should turn a blind eye to the intent of Congress. That is what this is about.

We are going to hear everything else today on this rule. I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the actual rule before you, not about everything else. We will have plenty of time on that. This bill is a good bill. It does what it needs to do. It restores for Republicans and Democrats and the American people what it needs to have.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source