Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a new member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This legislation may be well intended, but it would have unintended consequences that would make the government less efficient and less effective. I stood here just 4 months ago when the House, for the second time, considered a package of special interest bills, including this one. I said then that the Republican leadership in the House cannot fool the American people by passing the same bad bills over and over again, yet, Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Yesterday, the House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 56th time. Today, we are considering an antiregulatory bill the House has considered three times before. Tomorrow, we will consider another antiregulatory bill the House has also passed before. H.R. 50, the bill we are considering today, would add red tape to the rulemaking process in an effort to slow down or halt agency rules. One thing that is different this time around is that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 50 as reported would increase direct spending by $18 million over the next 10 years. CBO estimates that this increase would primarily impact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureau that was established to protect our constituents. The majority inserted a last-minute provision last night after the Rules Committee meeting to address this problem. The majority's fix, however, does nothing to reduce the cost of the bill. The majority instead inserted language to cut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's budget by $36 million in fiscal year 2016. Cutting CFPB's budget by $36 million while also requiring the agency to comply with significant new requirements is absurd. On Saturday, The Huffington Post published an article titled, ``Congress Revives Gingrich-Era Law to Thwart Obama.'' The article said: Republicans in Congress aim to revamp an antiregulatory law from the Newt Gingrich era in an effort to paralyze new financial, environmental, and labor rules with a never-ending string of court challenges. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was enacted as a part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Even in the context of the extreme agenda of the Contract with America, Congress included several limitations in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This bill would repeal those limitations. For example, under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with regulated industries on proposed rules before they are even made public. For example, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau planned to propose a new rule to protect consumers from abusive mortgage practices, banks would get advance access to the rule and the opportunity to shape it before our constituents, the consumers. I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules, but they should do it through the normal public comment process just like other stakeholders. H.R. 50 would also expand judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The statute currently prohibits courts from using its requirements to delay or invalidate a rule. This bill eliminates that restriction which would allow regulated industries to use the law to slow down rulemakings. This bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of political interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. The bill removes that exemption. That would mean that the independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review which could undermine their independence. Section 12 of the bill would require an agency to perform retrospective review, including an additional cost-benefit analysis of any existing rules if requested by the chairman or ranking member of a committee. It is interesting that we always talk about being able to predict what is going to go on in the business world. This certainly would add a high level of unpredictability. I will offer an amendment at the appropriate time to strike that provision. These flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill. The most important reason is that we rely on agency rulemakings to protect our children, protect our workers, protect our economy, and protect our constituents, the folks who sent us here. That is why the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards--a group of more than 150 good government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and community organizations--sent a letter to the Oversight Committee opposing this bill. Here is what the letter said: ``The costs of deregulation should be obvious by now: the Wall Street economic collapse, various food and product safety recalls, and numerous disasters, including the recent Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina and the Freedom Industries chemical spill in West Virginia, demonstrate the need for a regulatory system that protects the public, not corporate interests.'' Congress should be moving forward to protect the public from harm, not rolling back the clock and weakening important safeguards. Yesterday, the White House issued a statement opposing this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to be clear. Many things concern me about this legislation. We need to be very careful about this. We have a situation here where this is clearly an effort to give Big Business an advantage. All the speakers on our side have talked to that. We can go around saying we don't need regulations, but regulations are very, very important. This President has done a lot with regard to addressing the issue of regulations. There is something else that is happening here that really bothers me. There was a tremendous effort by the other side when we were trying to get the consumer financial protection bill passed. After seeing our constituents abused over and over again, we bring about an agency that would bring them some type of protection, and here, we are taking away money from an agency that already needs money, the very agency that is there to help our constituents. That concerns me. The other thing that concerns me is that we have an extra layer here. It makes it much more difficult now with regard to rulemaking, and then to have the courts have the ability to delay and basically take away rules is unprecedented. That is something that even Newt Gingrich didn't do. We need to look at what we are doing and bring a sense of balance, and the other side will say that balance is brought about because private industry is given an opportunity to be involved in the process. Well, they really do have a tremendous advantage because, as Ms. Norton said, they are the ones that have the lawyers. They are the ones who have the big money. They are the ones now who will be able to come in before the regulations are even formulated and have their say while the public won't be in that kind of position. Let's not kid ourselves. We are putting our constituents at a decided disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. This is a triumph for Big Business. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have on this side?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Ranking Member Rahall for this time. I also thank him for his work on this legislation and for his decades of service to our great Nation. He will be sorely missed in the Transportation Committee and, indeed, in the Congress. I also want to thank Chairman Shuster, Chairman Hunter, and Ranking Member Garamendi for all of their hard work on this legislation. I rise today in support of this measure, H.R. 5769, the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. And it is interesting that Mr. Coble just got up to make sure that he thanked everybody, but I want to thank him. When I served as the chairman of the subcommittee, he was one of my staunchest supporters. He was the epitome of bipartisanship. He always made it clear that the Coast Guard was sometimes not put on the front burner, was on the back burner, and he wanted to make sure that they were on the front burner, and I want to thank him for this. This is so very, very significant, and I want to thank him for his friendship over the many years. This measure includes critical provisions strengthening the Department of Transportation's, DOT, authority to enforce cargo preference requirements to ensure that government-impelled cargoes are carried on U.S.-flagged vessels. Section 321 of this legislation clarifies that the DOT has exclusive authority to determine whether a government-impelled cargo is subject to these requirements. Section 321 also requires the DOT to conduct an annual review to determine whether government programs are in compliance with cargo preference requirements. According to the Maritime Administration, the number of U.S.-flagged vessels operating in international trade has declined nearly 25 percent in just the last 3 years, falling from 106 in January of 2012 to just 81 as of this month.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we don't take deliberate and swift steps to preserve the U.S. Merchant Marine, we will lose it, leaving our Nation dependent for merchant sealift capacity on foreign-flagged vessels and foreign mariners. Despite what some may claim, reserving the carriage of the U.S. Government-impelled cargoes is not unlike any other government program designed to ensure that the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer funds benefits Americans. Again, this is a very important piece of legislation. I urge all the Members to vote for it. To all of those who have been a part of this in making it happen, I express my appreciation. On behalf of the Coast Guard, I express my appreciation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Jeffries for calling this Special Order tonight. Let me say to America, whenever a law enforcement officer shoots and kills an unarmed citizen in this great country, America has a problem. I want us to be very careful that we don't become distracted and not address the issues. I know that we in the Congressional Black Caucus make sure that we don't get involved in motion, commotion, and emotion and no results, and that is what this is all about because the things that we are talking about is trying to bring about change, not just for our young people today, but for generations yet unborn. Let me just briefly state that I am very pleased with what the President did today. I think it is a step in the right direction, the effort to get body cameras, 50,000 of them, and to establish a task force. Right after Ferguson happened, I, along with a hundred other leaders, wrote to the President, and we just asked for certain things, and I will name them, and then I will yield back because I know we have limited time. We asked that DOJ develop a training for law enforcement officers to counteract racial bias, renewed focus on diversity hiring and retention among law enforcement professionals, grants to support engagement with youth in the communities these officers serve, call for the demilitarization and reduction of excessive weaponry among community police departments, call for DOJ oversight of law enforcement practices, and increased accountability through national standards for investigation into cases of inappropriate police behavior. We in the Congressional Black Caucus will continue this fight. To the Brown family, you have our condolences, but we know that you want to make sure that change is brought about. We promise you that we are going to do everything in our power to make that happen.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced the bill we are considering today, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments, to give the American people access to records Presidents create while they are in office. I appreciate, first of all, the kind words of the chairman, and I appreciate the support this bill has received from him, Chairman Issa, as well as the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Carper. The House passed this legislation in January by a vote of 420-0. This bill also passed the Senate with no opposition. There are not many bills that make it through both House and Senate without even a hint of opposition, but this is one of them. When the Senate passed the House bill, it made technical changes that require us to pass the bill again. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill again, so that we can send it to the President for his signature. The bill will amend the Presidential Records Act by adding procedures to ensure that the records of Presidents and their senior advisers are released to the public in a timely manner. Under current law, Presidents can restrict access to their records for up to 12 years after they leave office. After that time, Presidents may continue to restrict access to their records by asserting that they are protected by executive privilege. Under this bill, the records of current and former Presidents will continue to be protected for 12 years after they leave office. After that period, however, the bill would create a presumption of disclosure, and Presidents would have up to 90 days to object or those records would be automatically released. In other words, when records are requested more than 12 years after a President leaves office, this bill would place the burden on the President to review those records and either assert executive privilege or allow them to be publicly disclosed. This legislation would not impact the ability of Presidents to review their records before they are released. The legislation also would not impact the ability of Presidents to protect records because of national security concerns. The bill has also been amended to address an issue raised by the White House. In the original version of this bill, Presidents would have had 40 days to review records. Based on bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, the current version of the bill now extends that review period to 90 days. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments would also require that any assertion of a privilege by a former President be affirmed by the incumbent President or through a court order for the record to be withheld from the public. This will provide an important check to ensure that Presidents cannot keep their records secret without accountability. The bill also includes language based on an amendment that Chairman Darrell Issa proposed during the committee markup of the bill to address the use of personal email by Federal employees, and that amendment makes the bill even better. This bill would continue to allow employees to use their personal email account for official business when necessary, but it would require employees to copy their official email account or forward their email to their official account. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments updates the Federal Records Act to modernize the definition of what constitutes a record and to allow agencies to use digital reproductions when they are required to indefinitely maintain copies of documents. Finally, this bill is an important step forward in protecting our historical record. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1233 and send it on to the President's desk. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for your cooperation working with me over a good bit of time to bring this to the floor. I really appreciate it. I urge all of our Members to vote in favor of this bill. I think it is a good bill. It has been made better because we had the input of both sides of the aisle and not only both sides of the aisle, but also the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4. The special interest bills that make up this package have all passed the House before and went nowhere in the Senate. This is not just a waste of time, it is a waste of taxpayer money. Americans work hard for their money, and here we are wasting time, and everybody knows that. This legislation is simply a gimmick. It hurts me to even say that, but it is, in fact, a gimmick. The Republican leadership in the House cannot fool the American people by passing the same bad bills over and over again. Just because Republican leadership has slapped the word ``jobs'' on this bill does not change the fact that the bill will not create jobs, and they know that. We each represent 700,000 people. Those people have sent us here with the mission of making their lives better. The legislation we are considering today will not help the people we represent. This bill would help big corporations. Let me give you an example. Under this legislation, private companies would have the ability to weigh in on agency rulemakings before individual citizens and most other stakeholders. That means that oil companies could weigh in on drilling regulations before the American public even gets a chance to submit comments. Another section of the bill would explicitly prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from taking into account benefits when providing total cost estimates for proposed and final rules as required by the bill. The bill also contains numerous provisions to degrade the regulatory process and make it nearly impossible for agencies to take actions that protect our health, our safety, our air, our water, our food, and our environment. This is a terrible piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to H.R. 24. Let me be clear. I support transparency surrounding the operations of the Federal Reserve. Transparency helps ensure that the Federal Reserve is implementing policies that will achieve the objectives given to it by Congress: supporting maximum employment, price stability, and moderate, long-term interest rates. I emphasize, however, that the Federal Reserve has been subject to audit since 1978. Further, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which I supported, significantly expanded the authority of the Government Accountability Office to examine the Federal Reserve's operations. It also required the Federal Reserve to make public a wider range of data than it had previously disclosed. For example, Dodd-Frank authorized GAO to begin auditing discount window operations and required the Federal Reserve to begin releasing information about emergency credit transactions and discount lending programs. Critically, however, Dodd-Frank ensured that transparency surrounding the Fed's operations was expanded in a way that would not compromise the Fed's ability to review and alter monetary policy without fear that its internal deliberations would be made public. Mr. Speaker, if enacted, this bill would severely curtail the independence that has been a hallmark for the Federal Reserve and has been essential to its ability to strengthen our country. Specifically, H.R. 24 would permit GAO to audit the communications that members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors have with each other and with staff regarding monetary policy. The act would also permit GAO to audit transactions conducted under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee. Such audits, which could be conducted on an almost real-time basis under this bill, could have a chilling effect on the Fed. If board members know that their statements may become public, they may be inhibited from speaking candidly about the economic trends they are observing or the monetary policies they believe would best respond to current conditions. Further, simply by requesting that the GAO conduct certain audits, Members of Congress could seek to influence the Fed's deliberations and policy decisions. The Federal Reserve is responsible for stewarding monetary policies that will support our Nation's long-term growth. We should expand transparency surrounding the Federal Reserve in a way that will ensure short-term political considerations do not unduly influence the Federal Reserve's monetary policymaking responsibilities. The Oversight Committee has not held a single hearing or heard a single witness regarding the far-reaching consequences that passage of this legislation could have. I oppose this legislation, and I urge Members to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I will be brief, but I urge Members to vote against the legislation. I think it is a giant step in the wrong direction. I yield back the balance of my time.