Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment requires the Comptroller General to include an estimate of a rule's effect on inflation in the congressional review report.
I oppose this amendment because it requires an estimate of a rule's effect on inflation, which would require the Comptroller General to speculate, based on limited evidence, how rules that likely have little to do with the economy would affect inflation.
The GAO has already reported to Congress that they would be unable to assess a rule's impact on the economy with the limited information available, and in any case, the 15 days provided for major rule reports do not allow for the GAO to make a determination on a rule's effect even if they had the necessary information.
Adding more requirements for various officials to estimate a rule's effect on the economy when they lack the necessary time and information to provide a concrete answer will not heighten the efficacy of this bill but will, rather, create more unnecessary estimates for Congress to weigh in their review of agency rules.
In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has previously noted that estimating the total cost of regulations is inherently difficult and that such estimates of the cost of regulation should be viewed with a great deal of caution. Like the OMB, CRS has noted that there are significant methodological challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules.
I oppose this amendment because it focuses only on the cost of regulatory protections while completely ignoring the monetary benefits of those critical rules and because it asks the Comptroller General to do what is impossible to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is very nice to say that we should examine the inflation that has occurred and the spending that has occurred, but that is not what the amendment calls for.
The amendment requires the Comptroller General to include an estimate of a rule's effect, a rule that presumably hasn't yet been issued, on inflation in the congressional review report.
Now, I stated before why it is impossible to do that, why the CRS and the OMB say that there are significant methodological challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules. Therefore, we shouldn't be asking the impossible. It certainly has nothing to do with looking at prior expenditures or prior borrowing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, as I noted in our debate on the REINS Act last night, the REINS Act is aimed at undermining and frustrating the purpose of government by grinding Federal rulemaking to a halt.
By lowering the threshold of this dangerous bill from $100 million to $50 million, this amendment would make the REINS Act even more destructive.
I accordingly oppose this amendment for the same reasons I oppose the REINS Act at large. By requiring Congress to vote to approve and for the President to sign a resolution of approval for any major rule from the executive branch, we will be putting our constituents in harm's way.
Just last week, we saw how a small faction of far-right Republicans can hold the legislative process in the House hostage, all to make a point to the Speaker.
I oppose this amendment and the efforts of the majority to make the functions of government more political and subject to the whims of individual Members of Congress.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The central fallacy of the REINS Act that I noted last night is that Congress can possibly legislate on all the things, on all the regulations that we have. There are thousands of regulations, and there must be for the safety of our people.
How many parts per billion of arsenic in the atmosphere are safe? Is it 15? Is it 20? Is it 200? No one in this body has the expertise to say that, but there are experts in the agencies who are trained to do that.
How much exposure to radiation from x-rays is safe for an individual? We are not competent to decide that. That is why Congress has delegated over the years these decisions to agencies to make on our behalf. We write the general law, and we delegate the general power to decide these specific questions, and they do.
The central fallacy of the REINS Act is that it would make us try to make decisions in all of this. That is bad enough. The REINS Act now says you have to have Congress vote on every decision over $100 million. That is bad enough. This amendment would make it over $50 million, which makes it even worse.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment as I oppose the act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has previously noted that estimating the total cost of regulations is inherently difficult and that such estimates of the cost of regulation should be viewed with a great deal of caution.
Like the OMB, CRS has noted that there are significant methodological challenges to estimating and aggregating the total costs and benefits of rules.
I rise in opposition to this amendment as it requires the OMB to make a specific determination of a rule's impact when they already say it is difficult to make an estimate of the impact.
This amendment requires the OMB to do the impossible, to make a specific finding when OMB and CRS have already said that even estimates are very difficult and inherently unreliable. To request a finding is to request the impossible, and, therefore, I oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I have expressed my opposition to the entire REINS Act because, as I said before, we are not competent. Congress cannot possibly decide how many parts per billion of arsenic is safe in the air for people to breathe or how many rads of radiation are safe to have in x-rays before it causes cancer. We don't know that. That is why we write general laws, and in those laws, we have delegated the power to make specific rules to agencies who are staffed by thousands of experts in each particular field. That is why the REINS Act is so pernicious, because it would stop this. It would make us make those decisions. We have no competence to make those decisions.
The REINS Act is bad enough, but this amendment, which says that OIRA must issue a finding for each rule determining whether the rule has a significant economic impact, given that OMB and CRS have both said that it is very difficult to make even estimates, you can't make a finding. A finding implies exactitude. Given the fact that even the estimates are very difficult and unreliable, a finding is impossible. The amendment should not require that someone do the impossible. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment is unnecessary. Congress already has many ways to control agency rulemaking. We can delegate authority to agencies with specificity, thus limiting the scope of an agency's authority. We can impose restrictions on rulemaking through appropriations. We can influence rulemaking through oversight activities. If all of these measures fail, we also have the blunt tool of the Congressional Review Act.
Therefore, we do not need the oversight the REINS Act offers, but we also do not need to open the door to revising rules that have been in place for years. Doing so would create uncertainty for businesses who have adapted to rules that were passed years ago and continue in force.
The current Congressional Review Act only allows Congress to roll back rules within a short time period. The CRA was drafted with a short period of review intentionally, and to open the door to reviewing years of rules would be a huge expansion of the CRA, and it would create too much uncertainty for businesses and for all other economic actors.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman said that rules tell Americans what kind of cars they can drive. No, they do not. They do provide for the safety of the cars that Americans drive. They provide for all of the safety mechanisms that must be in the cars.
Again, Congress does not have the competence to know what safety mechanisms ought to be in the cars. That is why we have delegated rulemaking authority to agencies which have experts on how many parts-- I keep using this example--how many parts per billion of arsenic can be in the air, what safety measures must be in a car, et cetera.
The REINS Act violates this and is very dangerous to the American people. This amendment makes it even worse by essentially saying every rule has to be reviewed in 5 years by Congress. Congress can't possibly review all of these rules.
Therefore, this amendment will make Americans even less safe in many ways, and I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have a very clear difference of perspectives here. The gentleman talks about the right to life. I talk about the right to freedom. The right to reproductive freedom is a core human right that is protected by our Constitution.
The majority of the work our agencies do has little to do with the private decisions women make with the consultation of their doctors. In an effort to continue the culture wars, my colleagues have added this purposefully politicized amendment to signal that they, contrary to their supposed beliefs, do think that Big Government is good and that Big Government's reach extends to a woman's private decisions about what to do with her body.
All the rhetoric about the REINS Act is that Big Government is bad, that we should have less government. That is all the rhetoric of the Republican Party, generally. Yet, here they are, saying that government should reach into the private decisions of a woman with respect to her own body that were made in consultation with her doctor or perhaps with her husband or whomever. It is up to her, and government shouldn't determine her decision for her.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and the Republicans' crusade to create more laws about what we can do with our bodies and our reproductive decisions because government should not be in the business of dictating private decisions to private people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party claims to be the party of freedom, but not when it comes to women and the decisions they make with respect to their own bodies. It is then the party of government repression and dictation.
You cannot do what you decide to do. You cannot do what you think is best. You must do what government thinks is best--namely, not have an abortion.
I proudly support the right to abortion. I believe abortion should be safe and legal. Whether it is rare is up to the individuals. It is a personal freedom. The Democratic Party supports personal freedom, unlike the Republican Party, which while claiming to support personal freedom seeks to repress it.
They are a party that says you cannot decide what to do with your own body, a party that says you cannot read what we don't want you to read, a party that says: Let's ban books. Let's ban plays. Let's take them out of the school libraries and out of the public libraries.
Some freedom.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. It is another example of the Republican Party's attempt to suppress freedom, and it must not pass.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chairwoman, while the estimate of the economic impact of any rule by the GAO would be highly speculative and should be considered with caution--as the GAO itself said--this rule would at least lessen the harm that this dangerous bill would effect.
Although this amendment does not cure all the ills in the REINS Act, the amendment would at least reduce the number of rules REINS would apply to, and, therefore, I support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, this amendment amends the definition of rule to include interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and all other guidance documents.
However, guidance documents from agencies are not given the force of law in court. Expanding this bill to also require any guidance the agency gives to businesses about how the rules will be enforced is a gross expansion of the Congressional Review Act and would ensure that agencies provide less guidance for business thus creating more uncertainty. More uncertainty in business stifles business.
Madam Chair, you want to know the environment you are operating in if you are a businessperson.
This amendment is an overstep and would stifle further the work of our agencies and would make it much more difficult to conduct business in this country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.
Madam Chair, at the risk of sounding repetitive from what I have said in several other amendments, Congress is not capable of making the judgments--the thousands and millions of judgments--on specifics like how many parts of arsenic per billion in the atmosphere is safe? What should the tolerance of a braking system in the automobile be? How many units of radiation can a person tolerate that is worth risking in an MRI or a CAT scan?
That is why Congress has delegated to agencies, which we created, the power to make these decisions which we are not competent to make, the thousands and thousands of specific decisions on scientific and other questions; mostly scientific questions.
The REINS Act is a very bad piece of legislation because it would say that the agencies can't do this, that Congress must do it, and we don't have the capacity. We don't have the time, and we don't have the knowledge.
How many people here know how many units of radiation are safe?
How many hearings must be conducted for the thousands or even millions of decisions that must be made each year?
The REINS Act is a bad idea. This amendment, in effect, expands the REINS Act to include interpretive rules and general statements of policy. It makes it even more impossible. Therefore, it makes a very bad bill worse, and I oppose it and urge its defeat.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, the REINS Act would already frustrate the point of government by grinding the critical actions of our agencies to a halt.
Why, Mr. Roy--and I presume the majority generally--feels the need to also include efforts to protect some of the most vulnerable among us is beyond me.
America has a long history of discrimination, and efforts to include these historically marginalized groups should be celebrated and supported, not subjected to further scrutiny by Congress just because the majority disagrees with supporting these individuals.
May I remind you that we represent all the people, and amendments like this undermine our service to our constituents.
I would ask, why should we tell hospitals not to perform certain medical procedures? If gender-affirming surgery is necessary for the patient and the doctor says it is, why shouldn't the VA hospital provide such surgery?
We do not, I presume, want to say it is because we want to discriminate against transgender people, or we want to discriminate against gay or lesbian people. I hope that is not what we are saying, but that is what this amendment seems to do.
I oppose this amendment because it goes against our notions of equality and our notions of fairness.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, the gentleman says: Why don't we legislate on some of this? We have.
Might I remind the gentleman that last year we passed the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying the rights of two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other because we respect freedom?
The amendment does not respect freedom. The amendment, by its description by its sponsor, would say, no, we don't want to do gender- affirming surgery. We don't want to perform surgery that people need because we disapprove of them. That is wrong.
The REINS Act is a very bad act for all the reasons I have stated many times already today. I am not going to repeat them. This amendment would make it worse because diversity, equity, and inclusion executive orders are things to be celebrated, not things to decry.
Madam Chair, I include in the Record a list of organizations opposing H.R. 277. Opposition to H.R. 277
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, consisting of over 160 labor, consumer, and environmental organizations, including: AFL-CIO Alliance for Justice American Association of University Professors American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers American Forum American Lung Association American Rivers American Sustainable Business Council Americans for Financial Reform BlueGreen Alliance Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR) Center for American Progress Center for Biological Diversity Center for Digital Democracy Center for Food Safety Center for Foodborne Illness, Research & Prevention Center for International Environmental Law Center for Progressive Reform Center for Responsible Lending Consumer Federation of America Consumer Reports Demos Earthjustice Economic Policy Institute Environment America Farmworker Justice Free Press International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Center for Technology Assessment International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) League of Conservation Voters Main Street Alliance Media Matters for America National Association of Consumer Advocates National Consumers League National Employment Law Project National Family Farm Coalition National Women's Health Network National Women's Law Center Natural Resources Defense Council Partnership for Working Public Citizen Reproductive Health Technologies Project Sciencecorps Service Employees International Union Sierra Club STOP Foodborne Illness The Arc of the United States U.S. PIRG Union of Concerned Scientists Union Plus United Food and Commercial Workers Union United Steelworkers Voices for Progress Waterkeeper Alliance Worksafe
The Center for Progressive Reform; a coalition of health partners including American Lung Association, Allergy & Asthma Network, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practioners; and the American Association of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, yet again, we have another amendment aimed at dividing us instead of allowing us to serve the people who elected us.
Vaccinations help us eradicate terrible diseases, like smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, rubella, and on and on and on.
Adding this amendment would not help us govern. It will not help us serve our constituents. Instead, it would just serve to undermine necessary health and safety rules.
We here in this Chamber cannot know what contagious diseases we may face in the future, and I oppose any amendment that would undermine our ability to protect our constituents.
Madam Chair, before I was allowed to go to school--I won't tell you how many years ago that was--I had to be vaccinated for diphtheria, for whopping cough, for the diseases that they then knew how to vaccinate against. Nothing has changed. We are to vaccinate people to prevent diseases and pandemics.
The fact of the matter is that people should be required to be vaccinated, especially a nurse, a nurse who is dealing with patients, who is breathing on those patients. She can transmit the disease. So certainly, she should be required to be vaccinated because the vaccination not only protects her, but it also protects against transmission of the disease to the next person. The healthcare worker certainly ought to be required to be vaccinated.
When we have a pandemic like the COVID-19 pandemic that we had, 2- year-olds should have been required to wear masks. It would be child abuse for parents not to do that because there was no vaccination available for 2-year-olds. The only way to protect them against COVID was to have them wear masks. These mandates are meant to protect the public's health and safety.
God willing we won't have another pandemic such as we had, but in the future, we will be required, I presume, to be vaccinated against major threatening diseases. That is right. To expand the major rule to include any increase in mandatory vaccinations is intended to prevent mandatory vaccinations. That is a crime against the public health.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, why the COVID-19 vaccine should be more politicized than any other vaccine, I don't know. I don't understand that.
And why the COVID-19 vaccine is considered by the gentleman to be politicized, I don't understand that either.
It is just another vaccine. It is another vaccine for a very raging pandemic we just had and which is hopefully over--although people are still dying of COVID-19. People should get vaccinated against it, if they haven't been vaccinated.
But the REINS Act would make it much more difficult to require or even to drop the requirement for vaccination, and this amendment would specifically make it more difficult.
That is ridiculous from a public health point of view, therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source