Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), one of the cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume as I close. Madam Speaker, there have been several cases where interns have tried to bring suit and the courts have said that you have no remedy. Chairman Chaffetz is absolutely right. It is sad when you can have such an egregious act but no remedy. I think one of the most frustrating things for anyone is when they have been harmed or when they have been treated wrongfully and there is no remedy, there is a problem. The courts have said over and over again: Congress, if you want there to be a remedy, then you have to act. That is exactly what we are doing today. I think it says a lot for us as a Congress, and I think it says a lot for us as a Nation. Going back to some of the words of Chairman Chaffetz, when we look at unpaid interns, they do come to these offices trying to get experience and trying to learn the duties and the responsibilities of a certain job. They realize that by doing this, it may very well change in a positive way the trajectory of their destiny. They come in with those high expectations, only to have them destroyed. Sometimes the damage can last not for a day or for a week, but for a lifetime. Then there is another piece that I think a lot of people don't think about, and that is that it is not always the deed, but it is also the memory of having gone through these types of incidents. I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I would urge my colleagues to vote for it. Again, I thank the chairman, because we sat there in a hearing and we heard about a very bad case. A lot of people wonder about the value of hearings sometimes, but out of that hearing came this legislation. So, again, I thank the chairman for all of his hard work in helping us get the bill to the floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, again, I would urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment. Again, we have a situation here where this 6- month moratorium is another way of blocking the rulemaking process. I think it is very unfortunate in this time. I think, if we are talking about transparency, we need to be transparent about why we have this moratorium. The fact is that it is an effort to stop important rulemakings from taking place. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 712. This legislation represents yet another attack by House Republicans on critical public health, safety, and environmental protections. I oppose this unnecessary and potentially dangerous legislation in its entirety. However, I will focus my remarks today on title II of this bill, which is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Title II, also known as the ALERT Act, is an attack on agency rulemaking that is inaccurately advertised as an effort to improve transparency. In fact, this bill explicitly prohibits the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from taking into account benefits when providing estimated cumulative costs to proposed and final rules. That is not providing transparency. That is providing one side of the story. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which represents over 150 good government, labor, scientific, and health organizations, sent a letter opposing the ALERT Act when it was marked up in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The letter states: ``The requirements of the ALERT Act, which would delay important public protections and waste scarce government resources, fail to provide needed transparency improvements in the regulatory review process. Instead, the reporting requirements mandated under the ALERT Act would undermine transparency by generating cherry-picked data that seems calculated to provide a distorted picture of the U.S. regulatory system.'' The bill would also prevent a rule from taking effect until certain information is posted online for at least 6 months. The only exceptions to this requirement would be if an agency exempts the rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or if the President issues an executive order. This is an unnecessary roadblock that jeopardizes public health and public safety. One example of a rule that would be affected by this bill is the recently published ATF regulation that closes a loophole that allowed individuals to avoid required background checks when purchasing some of the most dangerous weapons through trusts or legal entities. Under the bill, this rule could not take effect until certain information had been posted online by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for 6 months. That is 6 months, that delay, in putting commonsense gun safety procedures in place and would delay them. Many of the disclosure requirements in this legislation are redundant. Agencies already publish regulatory plans twice a year. This bill would require agencies to provide monthly updates to their regulatory plans. This is unnecessarily burdensome and would require agencies to divert already scarce resources to comply. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 712. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the second antiregulation bill the Republicans have brought to the floor in 2 days. Yesterday, we debated a bill that purported to cut bureaucracy by creating a $30 million commission. Today, we are debating a bill that purports to provide transparency but, in fact, decreases transparency. The bill directs the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to publish the total cost of all rules proposed or finalized without counting any of the offsetting benefits. That is not transparency. That is misinformation. The proponents of this bill want to focus exclusively on the costs of regulations because information about the benefits undercuts their narrative. The bill's focus on the costs alone ignores the enormous benefits that regulations can have. These benefits can be measured in terms of lives saved, injuries reduced, and even dollars gained. In fact, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reported in October that the net annual benefits of major rules issued during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2014 is some $215 billion. Agency rules save lives, improve health and safety, and protect our financial markets. The provisions in this bill that would prevent rules from taking effect until certain information has been made available on the Internet for 6 months are an unnecessary and potentially dangerous roadblock. We don't need an arbitrary 6-month delay in putting in place rules--like high chair and crib safety standards--that protect our children. This bill is also unnecessarily burdensome. For example, this bill would require OIRA to provide a report on the number of rules and a list of each rule for which a resolution of disapproval was introduced in either the House or Senate under section 802 of the Congressional Review Act. Under this requirement, the legislative branch would be requiring the executive branch to report on the activities of the legislative branch. That is not transparency. That is a waste of agency resources. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment, cosponsored by Government Operations Subcommittee Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, would strike the 6-month moratorium on rules imposed by the bill. Title II of this bill prohibits an agency rule from taking effect until 6 months after agencies submit information the bill requires to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and that office posts this information on the Internet. Under the bill, if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs fails to post any of the required information, a rule would be prohibited from taking effect. This is an arbitrary moratorium. The bill allows for only two exceptions. One exception is if the agency exempts a rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The other exception is if the President issues an executive order requiring a rule to take effect. This bill covers all agency rulemakings, including rules needed to protect our health, safety, and our environment. For example, this bill would cover rules like the one recently published by the Department of Justice that clarifies who is responsible for reporting to law enforcement that a gun has been lost or stolen in transit. Our country doesn't need an unnecessary 6-month delay in putting in place a commonsense safety rule like this one. The bill's 6-month moratorium exposes this bill for what it really is, which is a way to delay agency rules. My amendment would remove this provision in the underlying bill. I urge all Members to adopt my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time with the right to close.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would further increase the duplication and burden of the underlying bill. Agencies are already required to perform an analysis, under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, of whether a proposed rule imposes an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. This amendment would require agencies to report to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs every month on any unfunded mandate estimates for proposed rules. This amendment would be a backdoor way to get the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to review unfunded mandate assessments by independent agencies. Currently, independent agencies are exempt from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This amendment would require independent agencies to conduct unfunded mandate assessments and submit them to OIRA. This would jeopardize the independence of these agencies, which is so very important. I oppose the underlying bill, and I oppose this amendment, which does not improve the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, again, I think I have stated very clearly why we oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is cosponsored by Government Operations Subcommittee Ranking Member Gerry Connolly. Our amendment would exempt independent agencies from the unnecessary, burdensome, and potentially dangerous provisions of this legislation. This bill would prohibit an agency rule from taking effect until the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs posts certain information on proposed and final rules on the Internet for at least 6 months. The bill only allows for two exceptions. One exception is if the agency exempts a rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The other exception is if the President issues an executive order requiring a rule to take effect. This bill covers all agency rulemakings, no matter how important. When applied to independent agencies, it is particularly dangerous. Independent agencies are supposed to regulate industries without the risk of political interference on their rulemaking. They are not required to obtain approval for their rules from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Under this bill, a rule issued by an independent agency could be delayed if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs fails to comply with the requirements of the bill. That means this bill would give the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs the ability to delay a rule issued by an independent agency. That may be an unintended consequence, but it is a serious one that could affect our Nation's financial markets, health, and safety. One independent agency that would be affected by this rule is the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC recently proposed a safety standard for high chairs. The CPSC reports that over a 4-year period, an estimated 10,000 injuries occurred that were related to high chairs. H.R. 712 could delay rules like these high chair standards. That is simply unacceptable. Our amendment would exempt independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission from the bill. I urge my colleagues to adopt our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The SCRUB Act would establish a $30 million commission to duplicate work agencies are already supposed to be doing. The bill would entrust this commission with extraordinary powers that could be subject to abuse. This bill is opposed by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more than 150 consumer, labor, and good government groups. In addition, the administration announced last night that if this bill were presented to the President, his advisers would recommend that he veto it. President Obama has already issued two executive orders to eliminate unnecessary regulations. On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13563, requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing its existing rules. It requires each agency to ``periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.'' In addition, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13610 on May 10, 2012, requiring agencies to report twice a year to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on the status of their retrospective review efforts. In November 2014, the Administrative Conference of the United States issued a report highlighting the impact of these mandated reviews. The report concluded: ``Implementing President Obama's executive orders on retrospective review of regulations, agencies identified tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and tens of millions of hours of reduced paperwork and reporting requirements through modifications of existing regulations.'' Congress also has the authority and the responsibility to conduct oversight to review existing agency rules and to recommend or mandate reforms. Yet this bill attempts to reduce bureaucracy by creating a new commission that would cost taxpayers $30 million--let me say that again--$30 million to do what agencies and Congress are already doing. One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is the broad authority it would give to the commission. The commission would have virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. Specifically, section 101(c) of this bill states: ``The Commission may issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to the duties of the Commission. The attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence may be required from any place within the United States at any designated place of hearing within the United States.'' Most agency inspectors general do not have such broad authority to compel witness testimony, yet this unelected commission would have this authority. The commission would have jurisdiction over every existing regulation. This means that it could compel an individual to testify on any subject. A schoolteacher could be compelled to testify about education rules or a senior citizen could be compelled to testify about Medicare or Social Security rules. Three prominent law professors with the Center for Progressive Reform sent a letter opposing this bill last month. The letter said: ``H.R. 1155 would create a convoluted, complex, and potentially very expensive new bureaucracy to review existing agency rules and make recommendations for the repeal or weakening of those rules with little meaningful oversight, transparency, or public accountability to ensure that these recommendations do not subvert the public interest.'' This may be a well-intended bill, but it could have dangerous consequences. I urge Members to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy, dated January 5, 2016. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1155--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015 (Rep. Smith, R-MO, Jan. 5, 2016) The Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective, and tailored to further statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. The retrospective review of regulations has been an ongoing priority of this Administration. Starting in 2011, the President institutionalized the retrospective review of regulations in Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, requiring agencies to report twice a year on the status of their efforts. H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act, would make the process of retrospective regulatory review less productive. Further, the bill also would create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty; increase costs for businesses and State, local and tribal governments; and impede common-sense protections for the American public. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1155 in its current form. Although outside input and perspective on what rules may be ripe for potential reform or repeal is crucial, retrospective review is most effective when led by the agencies. The bill's creation of a stand-alone commission to review the entire Code of Federal Regulations is likely to produce a haphazard list of rules that, under the procedures in the bill, must be repealed if approved by a joint resolution. There appears to be no mechanism for making thoughtful and modest modifications to rules to improve their implementation and enforcement, which is often the best course of action for making regulations work better. Moreover, the bill's ``cut- go'' approach is problematic: it would interfere with the ability of agencies to issue regulations that are essential for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment. The Administration recognizes that the applicability of ``cut-go'' in H.R. 1155 is narrower than in other bills being considered in the Congress. Nonetheless, it is essential that agencies have the flexibility to promptly issue new, vital rules. This ability should not be constrained by a Commission's recommendation, or Congressional approval of a list of repealable rules. While retrospective review is an Administration priority and an essential tool to relieve unnecessary regulatory burden, it is important that retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily constrain an agency's ability to provide a timely response to critical public health or safety issues, or constrain its ability to implement new statutory provisions. For these reasons, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1155 in its current form. If the President were presented with the current version of H.R. 1155, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side of the aisle talk about the costs of regulations. I think we always have to keep in mind there is a reason for regulations. Sadly, in many instances, there have been abuses where public health safety is concerned. We have to make sure that we draw that balance. I think President Obama has done a lot in that regard and has probably done more than many of his predecessors. It is important to remember that these regulations have enormous benefits. In October, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reported that the net benefits of major rules issued during the Obama administration, from 2009 to 2014, is some $215 billion. Agencies have also reduced the cost of regulations by streamlining existing rules. In 2014, the Administrative Conference of the United States reported that more than 90 percent of agency retrospective reviews resulted in amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, the Department of Labor modified the chemical hazard labeling requirements, which saved manufacturers around $2.5 billion over 5 years. We do not need to waste $30 million on a new commission to review rules when agencies are already performing this function without additional taxpayer funding. I urge all Members to vote against this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.