Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013

Floor Speech

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly oppose the REINS Act (H.R. 367). This reckless legislation would put American families at risk while doing nothing to create jobs.

If enacted, H.R. 367 would delay and possibly block agency rulemaking in critical areas of public health and safety. This legislation would require that any ``major'' new rule be approved by Congress and the President within 70 legislative days. If Congress fails to act by the deadline, the proposed rule could not be reviewed again until the next Congress. My Republican colleagues do not deny this cumbersome process would prevent many new rules from taking effect. They argue preventing new rules is necessary to stimulate hiring and strengthen the economy.

Bruce Bartlett, a former advisor to Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said congressional Republicans' anti-regulatory fervor has nothing to do with jobs. Bartlett recently wrote: ``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.'' Supporters of this legislation rely on a thoroughly debunked study that claims regulations cost Americans in excess of $1.75 trillion. Moreover, the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited major flaws in the study's methodology, noting that the bill's authors admitted that it was ``not meant to be a decision-making tool for lawmakers or Federal regulatory agencies to use in choosing the `right' level of regulation'' and that they made ``no attempt to estimate the benefits'' of regulations.

H.R. 367 will fail to create jobs and expose American families and small businesses to new and unnecessary risks. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill, arguing it would ``delay and in many cases thwart'' implementation of important rules and increase unnecessary confusion and uncertainty in the economy. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards warns that this legislation ``would make it virtually impossible for federal agencies to ensure that American families are protected from tainted food, unsafe drugs, predatory financial schemes, dirty air and water, and dangerous workplaces.''

Abandoning Americans to an unregulated marketplace is not a solution for economic growth--it is a sure threat to public safety. In recent years, many Americans have died as a result of E. coli and salmonella outbreaks in our food supply. A failure to enforce federal workplace safety standards resulted in the tragic deaths of 29 miners in West Virginia. Finally, under-regulation allowed irresponsible bankers and mortgage lenders to destroy the education and retirement savings of millions of Americans. America is, in fact, facing a regulatory crisis. Not the crisis of ``over-regulation'' my Republican colleagues claim, but a series of crisis resulting from a failure to enforce and enact common-sense rules.

Sensible regulation is necessary for an efficient, fair and innovative private market. But we should not be surprised that industry will not always support--and rarely ask--to be regulated. History shows that industry groups initially opposed new requirements for seat belts and air bags, limitations on mercury pollution and even restrictions against child labor. In the short-term, narrow private interests often conflict with the broader public interest. Over time, well-designed and consistently-enforced rules often prove to be less costly and more beneficial than originally expected.

Democrats and Republicans should be working together to improve the federal regulatory structure. Our shared focus in Congress should be on reforming regulations to increase results and reduce costs. Partisan attempts to weaken common sense rules and protections will not make our economy--or our country--stronger.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 367 because it undermines public safety and distracts Congress from the urgent task of creating jobs.

Source