John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this has been an enlightening discussion because we have determined that H.R. 5 is based on the faulty premise that environmental and public safety protections kill jobs, result in economically stifling costs, and promote uncertainty. In fact, regulatory protections that ensure the safety of American- made products unquestionably foster job creation and protect the competitiveness of our business and global marketplace. This explains why so many organizations--more than 150--strongly oppose this legislation. Mr. Chairman, our constituents and the American citizens deserve something better than H.R. 5. We need legislation that creates middle class financial security and opportunity. We need sensible regulations that protect American families from economic ruin, that bring predatory financial practices to an end. We need workplace safety protections that ensure hardworking Americans can go to work each day without having to risk their lives as a result of hazardous work environments. Unfortunately, the measure before us does nothing to advance any of these critical goals, and so I must, therefore, oppose H.R. 5 and ask my colleagues to support a negative vote on this matter. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Veasey) for opening up this part of our Special Order for which the Congressional Black Caucus has come together to more critically examine the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions. As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, I led a joint statement in November that was signed by every Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee opposing Senator Sessions' nomination for United States Attorney General. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, charged with the administration of the criminal justice system and the enforcement of our civil rights. Senator Sessions is clearly unsuitable to lead the Department of Justice. In 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, witnesses said that Mr. Sessions had referred to the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and other civil rights groups, as both un-American and communist inspired. One prosecutor in the Alabama United States Attorney's Office testified that Mr. Sessions referred to him as ``boy'' and counseled him to be careful of what you say to White folks. His appointment to the Federal branch was opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and other organizations. Senator Sessions has criticized the section 5 preclearance provisions in the Voting Rights Act, which I and many others have been fighting to restore since the 2013 Supreme Court Shelby County v. Holder decision. In the 114th Congress, Senator Sessions opposed bipartisan criminal justice reform efforts. He has also opposed the reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act and nearly every immigration reform bill that has come before the Senate. A vote to confirm Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is a vote against freedom and equality. So I join with many of my colleagues today in urging the Senate to oppose his nomination, and I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, H.R. 26, the ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017,'' otherwise known as the REINS Act, would amend the Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take effect. Simply put, H.R. 26 would impose unworkable deadlines for the enactment of a major rule under procedures that could charitably be referred to as convoluted. Under this bill, the House may only consider a resolution for a major rule on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Keep in mind that typically 80 major rules are promulgated annually. Yet, there may be as little as just 15 days available to consider such measures based on the majority's legislative calendar for the current year. Furthermore, Congress may only consider such resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This process would constructively end rulemaking as we know it. Now, Mr. Chair, the reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle say we need this kind of gumming-the-works legislation--is because they claim regulations stifle economic growth. For example, they point to the outgoing administration and say that regulations promulgated during its tenure have hurt our Nation's economy. What they fail to tell the American people is that it was the Republican George Bush's administration's economic policies that caused the Great Recession. Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our Nation's economy. It led to millions of home foreclosures and devastated neighborhoods across America. In fact, it nearly caused a global economic meltdown. Nevertheless, as a consequence of strong regulatory policies implemented by President Obama through such measures as the Dodd-Frank Act, our Nation has recovered to a point where the unemployment has been cut nearly in half to less than 5 percent. Yet, the REINS Act would reverse these gains by empowering Congress to control and override the rulemaking process, even in the absence of any substantive expertise. More than 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and administrative law have warned in connection with substantively identical legislation considered in the last Congress, that without this expertise, any congressional disapproval is more likely to reflect the political power of special interests. Lastly, by upending the process for agency rulemaking so that Congress can simply void major rules through inaction, the REINS Act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of Article I of the Constitution. As a leading expert on administrative law states: ``The reality is that the act is intended to enable a single House of Congress to control the implementation of the laws through the rulemaking process. Such a scheme transgresses the very idea of separation of powers, under which the Constitution entrusts the writing of the laws to the legislative branch and the implementation of the laws to the executive branch.'' The REINS Act will further encourage corporate giants to hold our country hostage through a deregulatory, profits-first agenda and facilitate a political influence process rivaling the destructive industrial monopolies from the past century. In sum, H.R. 26, like the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act'' we considered yesterday on the House floor, is yet another blatant gift to big business to weaken the critical regulatory protections that ensure the safety of the air we breathe, the cars we drive, the toys we give our children, and the food we eat. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ill- conceived bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from H.R. 26, the REINS Act, rules issued to reduce the amount of lead in public drinking water. The ingestion of lead, of course, causes serious harmful effects on human health, even at low exposure levels. That is why the Environmental Protection Agency has set the maximum contaminant level for this toxic metal in drinking water at zero. According to the EPA, young children, infants, and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to lead because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower exposure levels in children than in adults. The Agency reports that, in children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing, and the impaired formation and function of blood cells. Take, for example, the Flint water crisis, which I have a little experience with, which was a preventable public health disaster. While much blame for the Flint water crisis lies with unelected officials who prioritize saving money over saving lives, the presence of lead in drinking water is, unfortunately, not unique to Flint. In fact, the drinking water of, potentially, millions of Americans may be contaminated by lead. My amendment highlights one of the most problematic aspects of H.R. 26: that it could slow down or completely block urgent rulemakings that protect health and safety. This is because Members simply lack the requisite scientific or technical knowledge to independently assess the bona fides of most regulations, which are often the product of extensive research and analysis by agencies as well as input from effective entities and the public. As a result, Members would have to make their own determinations based on their own--usually inexpert--views and limited information. Worse yet, some may be persuaded to disapprove of a rule in response to a wide-ranging influence exerted by outside special interests that favor profits over safety. My amendment simply preserves current law with respect to regulations that are designed to prevent the contamination of drinking water by lead. Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual measure that is being brought forward under unusual circumstances. To begin with, this measure would, believe it or not, empower our Federal legislature to undo virtually every regulation submitted to the Congress since mid-June of last year through the end of 2016 last year. The bill accomplishes this--every regulation--by authorizing Congress to disapprove these rules through a single joint resolution, thereby depriving Members to consider the merits of each individual regulation. This presents a number of problems. As the administration has stated, with a threat of veto of an identical bill that was considered last November, the legislation ``would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.'' This, in my view, is a cynical way of trying to legislate. For those concerned about the continued improvement of clean air and clean water, if we care about the safety of the toys we give our children, if we care about the environment, then we must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me. There hasn't been any deliberative process on the bill recently. It is amazing to me that we have such opposition to the bill. It would be overwhelming to put in the over 150 labor organizations, consumer organizations, environmental organizations, and others who have openly asked us to oppose this bill. If that isn't enough, we have the business community itself in opposition. The American Sustainable Business Council, which represents over 200,000 businesses--and I have a partial list of them--also opposes this measure. It is one of the rare instances in which I have brought to the floor legislation that is opposed by both labor and by business as well. It is a little bit of an insult that this bill is being considered, on top of that, under a closed rule. There can be no amendments to this measure. I am in a state of surprise that on the second day of a new Congress we would come forward with a measure that could potentially jeopardize public health and safety in so many different ways. I think that the opposition to this measure is so overwhelming that I am surprised that without hearings, without an opportunity for amendment, we are now considering a measure that has this much opposition. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Consumer Reports dated January 3, 2017. Consumer Reports, Washington, DC, January 3, 2017. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: Consumer Reports and its policy and mobilization arm, Consumers Union, strongly urge you to vote no on H.R. 21, the so-called ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' This bill would severely undermine accountability to the public regarding important protections and safeguards. Although the rules targeted by this legislation were finalized relatively recently, many have been under development for several years. Consumers Union has provided public comment on several of these regulations that were designed to protect consumers against unsafe products, dishonest business dealings, and other hazards in the marketplace that place their health, safety, or well-being at risk. Agency experts carefully examined these hazards and considered various alternative approaches to address them. They sought input and guidance from businesses, consumer organizations, outside scientific and legal experts, and the public at large, and ultimately developed final rules, explaining publicly the basis and rationale for the adopted approach. The federal law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) already permits a regulation carefully developed over many years to be erased by Congress, in a rushed process that does not reflect the same level of expertise or careful consideration. Congress could even rescind a rule for reasons that might be based not on any broader interests of the public, but on the narrower, private special interests of those seeking to avoid having appropriate obligations imposed on their profit-making activities. The potential for the CRA to be employed in the service of special interests is at least somewhat held in check by the fact that the law currently requires separate congressional action for erasing each regulation. A regulation considered for erasure under the CRA must be brought to the House and Senate in its own separate resolution, given its own debate and vote, and sent to the President for its own signature or veto. All officials involved in considering whether to erase the regulation and its protections are thus put on record, and can be held accountable for their positions and the consequences. Perhaps for this reason, there has only been one regulation rescinded under the CRA in its 20-year history. This important accountability check would be removed under the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' By allowing erasure of multiple regulations en bloc, this bill would enable Members of Congress and the President to evade public accountability for what Gould be ill-considered, politically motivated decisions that result in devastating consequences. Under the bill, no Member would ever have to be on record regarding any specific regulation being erased. In fact, any Member who actually wants to cast a more selective vote, to erase certain regulations but not others, would be unable to do so. We are somewhat encouraged that the House Majority, after initially acting behind closed doors to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics, has reversed course in light of major concerns raised about the impact on congressional accountability. We urge all Members to also recognize the damaging effects that this bill would have on accountability and on the ability of the American public to trust their elected representatives. We strongly urge you to vote no on the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act.'' Sincerely, Laura MacCleery, Vice President, Consumer Policy and Mobilization Consumer Reports. George P. Slover, Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union. William C. Wallace, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior colleague, to speak on the measure before us.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California for pointing out how innocent this measure is, and I am astounded by his feeling that regulations shouldn't be examined one by one. Under this measure, 61 regulations could be considered en bloc. To me, just trying to put together two regulations to revoke them would be very, very hard to handle. What we are talking about here is a bill that would provide special interests with yet another opportunity to block critical lifesaving regulations, and I want to say I have never had so much opposition to a bill brought to my attention before. 150 environmental organizations, consumer organizations, and labor organizations have urged the Members of this body to oppose H.R. 21. It is incredible. And then not only are workers and consumers against this measure as well as environmentalists, businesspeople are against it as well. I feel like there is some missing part to this thing. The American Sustainable Business Council has over 200,000 businesses. So here is labor and commerce combined, urging Congress not to do this on the second day of a new Congress with all the challenges that are before us, and he says it wouldn't create any problems. It would be okay to put in 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 60. This is incredible. It is not that we are working so hard that we don't have time to examine each one on a particular basis. Can you imagine this Congress trying to block regulations which would be offered in one bill that could be over 60 different regulations? I mean, it is unthinkable. It is not very practical at all. When we talk about meat labeling regulations and then in another paragraph or another section there would be standards for school lunch nutrition, they would be combined. My friend from California would say, well, that is no problem. We will take them separately, but they will all come in the same package. So if you wanted to examine all of these things individually, we could have an instance where the whole Congress could be consumed for weeks or for months trying to figure out why they should block all of these important and sensible safeguards. Business and labor are joined with us, and, to me, it is beyond comprehension for us to be concerned about not taking them up one at a time. This is worse than a conservative point of view, which I haven't found myself often agreeing with. But just to say let's have unlimited numbers of these blocking provisions all into one is beyond my comprehension. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who, up until recently, was a very active member of the House Judiciary Committee. He is now the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee.