Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013
Floor Speech
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the REINS Act of 2013.
As I noted during our extensive debate in the Judiciary Committee on this bill, it reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' I feel like Bill Murray. It's that day over and over again. We come back to the same bill.
We extensively debated this bill in the last Congress; we debated bills very similar to it in this Congress; and, again, we're here debating this bill, which, by any sensible measure and probably a civics student in the 10th grade or less would know that this is a seriously flawed bill that will impede legislation and hurt the American public. It's based on a premise that regulations by themselves stifle job creation, a rather unique concept that we have come to debate in our committee and now on the floor.
H.R. 367 threatens to undermine vital protections that ensure the safety and soundness of the entire range of societal needs, from food safety to clean air and clean water, to workplace safety, to consumer product safety, to financial stability. It does this by bringing most important Federal rulemakings--including those that protect the public like the Affordable Care Act and the implementation thereof, as well as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act aimed at keeping us back from the catastrophic days back in 2008 or 2009 when the world was coming to an end because of derivatives--it takes the implementation of these bills to a screeching halt, a result that will put at risk the well-being of millions of Americans, both from fiscal health and physical health.
The REINS Act would require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before a major rule can take effect. In the House, a committee of jurisdiction would have but 17 legislative days to consider a joint resolution of approval, after which it would automatically be discharged from the committee and sent to the full House--certainly not enough time to do a good job of reviewing the regulations. The House must consider such a resolution either on the second or fourth Thursday of every month, assuming that the House is even in session on that Thursday.
The bill also defines a ``major rule'' as one having at least a $100 million economic impact or having one of a number of other economic impacts. In all, Federal agencies issue about 50 to 100 major rules every year. That means that if the REINS Act had become law this year, there would only be 5 days left in 2013 for the House to consider 50 to 100 major rules. And while the other side loves gas, as we've seen with the farm bill and THUD, they can't pass it.
Given those traps set forth in the bill, no major
rule would ever go into effect. This, in turn, threatens agencies' ability to protect Americans' health, safety, and well-being. It's a way of stifling the opportunity to protect Americans.
Another concern with the REINS Act is the influence of industry lobbyists over rulemaking would tremendously increase. K Street would love it. Given the complexity of the rules at issue and the expedited timeframe for congressional consideration, Members would instead be bombarded with visits, phone calls, and talking points from industry lobbyists, who would no doubt take advantage of the REINS Act's short-circuited process to shape Members' views about a particular rule, probably within days of a major fundraiser.
On top of all the problems with this bill, it is simply unnecessary. First, to the extent that its proponents are concerned with Congress's accountability for agency rules, there are already numerous tools at our disposal to shape agency rulemaking. For example, Congress can rescind or limit its delegation authority to an agency if an agency acts beyond what we intended. Congress can also disapprove a rule under the Congressional Review Act process, defund enforcement of a rule or an agency through its appropriations and authorization power, overturn specific rules through legislation, and conduct regular oversight activity.
Second, to the extent that the REINS Act's proponents claim that the bill is necessary because the Obama administration has inundated the country with costly regulations, the facts simply do not bear this out. Just because you say ``Obama'' doesn't mean it's bad. Most Americans like Obama. He's been elected President twice.
In an op-ed that appeared in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Doyle McManus cited Cass Sunstein, former director of OIRA, known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who noted that in President Obama's ``first 4 years in office, he has issued fewer new Federal regulations than any of the four Presidents who came before him, including Ronald Reagan.''
Moreover, the op-ed noted that this President has revoked ``hundreds of outmoded rules that produced savings for government, business, and consumers that will add up to billions.''
Congress has already considered and rejected congressional approval schemes in the past. For instance, Chief Justice John Roberts--not exactly a flaming liberal--criticized legislation that was similar to the REINS Act back in 1983 when he was an associate White House counsel. In a memorandum, he objected that such legislation would ``hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies.''
So before Chief Justice Roberts saved the ACA, he spoke out on this legislation as well in giving us wise counsel.
Finally, the broader premise underlying the REINS Act--that regulation stifles economic growth and job creation--is simply false.
It's pretty incredible that the proponents of antiregulatory bills like the REINS Act continue to make this claim in light of the fact there's absolutely no credible evidence establishing the fact that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. But do not just take my word for it. Listen to some respected Republicans and conservatives.
Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, said:
Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them. The GOP opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that would likely lead to further layoffs at all levels of government. These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.
He concludes:
No hard evidence is offered for this claim. It is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated throughout the conservative echo chamber.
It's as if you say it enough, people will believe it.
On the related argument that regulations create business uncertainty, Mr. Bartlett has said:
Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.
That was Bruce Bartlett from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush days.
Susan Dudley, who headed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the administration of George W. Bush, has been quoted as saying that it is ``hard to know what the real impacts of regulation are.'' She also stated that she was unaware of any ``empirically sound way to assess the impact that proposed rules have on jobs.''
During one of the many hearings held on this issue in the last Congress, the majority's own witness clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. Christopher DeMuth, with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, stated in his prepared testimony that ``the focus on jobs ..... can lead to confusion and regulatory debates'' and that ``the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate.''
The REINS Act is seriously flawed in its very conception and based on false premises that regulation kills jobs. Ultimately, it will only serve to needlessly heighten risks to the health and safety--financial and physical--of the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 367, which I feel confident will pass this House and meet a timely death before it gets to see the light of day in the Senate.
Source