In Opposition to H.R. 2804 and H.R. 899

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2804, the so-called ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent (ALERT) Act and H.R. 899, the so-called ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act.''

This week, the House took up a series of rehashed bills--under the guise of the ``Stop Government Abuse Week''--that would limit the ability of federal agencies to enforce commonsense rules and regulations. While supporters of H.R. 2804 and H.R. 899 claim they are needed to curb overregulation, in reality, they would prevent federal agencies from doing their jobs and working to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect consumer health and safety.

My Republican colleagues contend that the two bills before us are a response to the ``tsunami'' of regulations under the Obama Administration. However, this is simply not true. In fact, federal agencies under President Obama have issued significantly less rules during his first four years in office when compared to President Bush's first term. Moreover, the ALERT Act would actually create more red tape by imposing unnecessary new procedures on agencies and adding over 60 new barriers in the federal rulemaking process.

Much like the ALERT Act, H.R. 899 would also introduce uncertainty into agency decision-making and undermine the ability of agencies to provide critical public health and safety protections. It would also weaken our democracy by giving powerful special interests and private industry an unfair advantage in the rulemaking process. Specifically, it would require agencies to consult with private industry--but not most other stakeholders, such as public health or food safety experts--before proposing rules.

I was disappointed that amendments offered by Representative CUMMINGS and Representative CONNOLLY were not adopted. Rep. CUMMINGS' amendment would have overturned a provision in the bill that directly compromises the autonomy of independent regulatory agencies--including the CFPB, SEC, and CPSC--by requiring that they report proposed rules to the OMB. Rep. CONNOLLY's amendment would have simply evened the playing field and ensured that public interest organizations and other stakeholders are provided the same opportunity for consultation afforded to special interest groups and private industry under this bill.

Over the last four years, President Obama has implemented significant reforms to the rulemaking process. In January 2010, the President signed an Executive Order that required agencies to determine if the benefits of proposed rules are justified considering their cost to society. He required an interagency review of overlapping rules and regulation between agencies that may prevent innovation in the private sector and instituted a policy to allow agencies to consider input from affected public and private stakeholders and experts when developing rules and regulations.

There is also a mechanism in place that already requires agencies to adhere to specific requirements of Federal law before issuing a rule or regulation. The Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the Congressional Review Act all serve the purpose of making sure that agencies are not overstepping their bounds when issuing rules and enforcing existing regulations.

At a time when Congress should be doing everything it can to create jobs and improve the economy, these bills are nothing but a distraction. They are unnecessary and potentially harmful to the public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose each of them.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source