Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Cloud of Texas to offer amendment No. 5 to H.R. 277, the REINS Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the REINS Act, which is an important effort to ensure Congress reclaims its rightful authority and responsibility to legislate.
This amendment is technical in nature, but it is important, nonetheless. In April of this year, the Biden administration issued an executive order on modernizing the regulatory review.
The purpose of this executive order is to allow the administration to implement their agenda more quickly and efficiently.
The executive order also raises the threshold for centralized review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, from $150 million to $200 million.
The order also gives the administrator of OIRA a discretionary role in determining which regulations are considered for full OIRA review.
OIRA serves as a responsible check on major regulations, reviewing the cost and benefits of each regulation, and ensuring that all public comments have been reviewed and considered before the regulation goes into effect.
OIRA, in other words, is a check on due diligence. This order will mean that fewer rules are reviewed by OIRA and, thus, less due diligence will be conducted over the administrative state.
So long as this executive order stands, a loophole will exist in the REINS Act. Fewer rules would be classified as major, and consequently would not be subject to congressional approval under the REINS Act.
My amendment would close this loophole by clarifying that OIRA must issue a finding of the full cost-benefit analysis of each rule and issue a determination as major or minor according to that finding.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague on the other side of the aisle just confirmed why this amendment is necessary and why the REINS Act is so important.
What I believe I heard him say is that because it is difficult for the administration to determine what the cost of these regulations are, they shouldn't have to make any determination at all and there should be no oversight whatsoever, either from OIRA or OMB, because it is just too doggone difficult to figure out how much these regulations are going to cost.
Frankly, I find that argument absolutely and complete absurd. We are talking about tax money. We are talking about a cost and expense that is being imposed against our small businesses, our mom-and-pop businesses, against our industry groups.
What the gentleman from the other side is saying is that nobody, including this administration, should ever have to disclose what the cost of those regulations are. That is exactly the reason as to why we need a robust review by OIRA as provided for in this amendment.
Mr. Chair, in closing, I do think it is clear that it is important to make this technical change for the REINS Act. It is important that we have an understanding as to what the cost of these regulations will be.
The very purpose of the REINS Act is to ensure that Congress is part of the legislative process for any regulation that would have an economic impact of over $100 million.
Without a robust review by OIRA, it is not possible to determine which of these regulations, in fact, would fit within that category. It is for that reason that I request the adoption of this amendment. It is a good one for the REINS Act, and it ensures that we close an important loophole to make sure that it is the Congress that is legislating and not the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment is simply an attempt to delay implementation of a bill that the Democrats do not support. If the Democrats don't like the bill, they can vote against it.
Even if implementation was delayed a year, it is unclear what, if any, value a study could provide. However, during that year, agencies would continue issuing more and more major rules at the expense of the American public.
It is time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role as the body that makes policy in this country.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I just have a couple of points.
One is that the REINS Act has enjoyed longstanding, bipartisan support. In fact, the House passed prior versions of the REINS Act with bipartisan support in each one of the 115th, 114th, 113th, and 112th Congresses. In other words, this is an act that has been studied and discussed extensively over the years, and there is no reason for a 1- year delay in its implementation once the bill passes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, this amendment undermines the purpose of the REINS Act. The REINS Act rejects a standard of legislative disapproval concerning major rules. Instead, the REINS Act creates a standard of legislative approval for major rules.
The fact is that in listening to my colleagues on the other side, it is very clear that they simply do not want to legislate. They want to turn over that authority to the executive branch in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
We don't believe in doing that. The fact is that the administrative state has enacted unpopular and unwise regulations that could never pass Congress, and that is why President Biden and his predecessors have sought to legislate through regulation versus our constitutional process.
If Congress does not approve a major rule, it should not go into effect. This amendment would leave the status quo in place.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
Again, this is just one more effort to try to undermine the very purpose of the REINS Act and make it so that it would not work as it is intended to work.
It is this body's responsibility to legislate, not the executive branch, not unelected bureaucrats, and not administrative agencies. We are the ones who represent the people of this country and are accountable to them through the decisions that we make.
Madam Chair, I urge the opposition to this amendment as it would undermine the very purpose of the REINS Act and is unnecessary, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I think this amendment perhaps defines the incredible contrast between this side of the aisle and the folks on the other side of the aisle.
I believe that $100 million is an astronomical amount of money, and they don't see that it is all that much. I don't believe that unelected bureaucrats in agencies ought to be making decisions that have impacts on our businesses of over $100 million without any legislative oversight, and they think that $1 billion is pretty low. I think that that really epitomizes the difference in our philosophy, how we view government, and how we view our responsibilities.
Under no circumstance should unelected bureaucrats in agencies be imposing hidden taxes against the people of this country without the accountability of the legislative branch being involved in the decision. I believe $100 million is too high and $1 billion is absolutely absurd.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HAGEMAN. Again, Madam Chair, I am going to say I think that this is clearly an effort to abdicate our responsibilities to legislate.
As far as protecting our air and water, I point out that the EPA is responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the United States of America when it blew out the Gold King Mine and turned the Animus River yellow several years ago in southwestern Colorado.
So while they want to turn over the responsibility of governing in this country to unelected bureaucrats in agencies that cause those kinds of disasters, I am unwilling to do so. I believe that this body ought to be accountable to the people and in making the decisions that have an economic impact of $100 million on their lives.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source