Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

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

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to exempt rules under the Clean Air Act from this bill. According to a 2011 study by the Environmental Protection Agency, the central benefits of the Clean Air Act exceed costs by a factor of more than 30 to 1, and the high benefits exceed costs by 90 times. Cleaner air provides exceptional economic benefits because it results in the improved health and productivity of Americans and reduces medical expenses for air pollution-related health problems. The Clean Air Act will prevent thousands of early deaths; and its air quality and health benefits, including the prevention of heart attacks and the reduction of pulmonary diseases like chronic bronchitis, will grow over time. Representative Raskin's amendment, which would exempt all rules that relate to the Clean Air Act, is based on common sense. Cleaner air benefits every man, woman, and child in the country. If the Environmental Protection Agency is prevented or delayed from promulgating new regulations relating to the Clean Water Act because of cost, the children of this country will pay a very heavy price. I hope that all Members will understand the need for exempting rules that result in cleaner air for our children and support this amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from this bill any rule that protects whistleblowers or that imposes penalties on individuals who retaliate against whistleblowers. This bill would jeopardize all agency rulemakings--no matter how important--even rules that protect whistleblowers. The Department of Energy issued a ruling in December that would authorize the department to impose civil penalties on Federal nuclear contractors who retaliate against whistleblowers who report information concerning nuclear safety. On January 31, 2017, DOE put a moratorium on that rule in response to President Trump's mandated freeze on rulemakings. This is exactly the kind of rule that could become a casualty of this bill. We must ensure that agencies can issue rules that protect individuals who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as safety issues that can be a matter of life and death. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Project on Government Oversight supporting my amendment. That letter states: ``Whistleblowers are the first and best line of defense against significant problems on federal projects and must be protected from retribution for the act of reporting wrongdoing. Regulations to protect those whistleblowers should be exempt from the SCRUB Act 2017.'' Project on Government Oversight, Washington, DC, February 28, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me say that whistleblowers have played a very significant role in our committee, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. As a matter of fact, many of the reforms that have come have come because people were bold enough to stand up and come forward and provide information that we would not have gotten. One of the things, Mr. Chairman, that we have said over and over again on a bipartisan basis is that we will protect whistleblowers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, I have, as the ranking member of our committee, had many opportunities to sit and listen to whistleblowers who were shaking in their shoes. They were worried. But there was something that they wanted to do that was far more important to them than just that moment. They were trying to make sure that they did the right thing, and they brought it to the attention of people that they thought would listen to them and would do something about their concerns when they felt they had got to the point where, in many instances, they felt that they had nobody to go to. This administration has been very interesting. If there is any time that we need to be protecting whistleblowers, it is right now because there are so many people in our government who feel that they are under threat. They see things changing, and many of them are in fear. I appreciate what the gentleman said, but I don't care how you look at this. If somebody has the nerve to come up and say, I want my government to be better--some people have told me, I want to preserve my democracy. I want it to be a democracy for my children so they can have the democracy that I had when I was born--and they have the nerve to come up, then we have to do everything in our power. We have to send that message, and the message needs to come from here. It may not come from the White House, but it has got to come from here. That is why this concerns me so much. Any message other than that says to those people that they have got to keep hiding, they have got to keep shaking in their boots, and they have got to keep silent when, deep in their souls, they want to make a difference. We are better than that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a very distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The SCRUB Act would establish a $30 million commission of unelected--and I emphasize that, unelected--bureaucrats to duplicate work that agencies are already supposed to be doing. The bill would focus on the costs of regulations while disregarding their benefits and protecting the most vulnerable populations in our country, like the children in Flint, Michigan. If there is any doubt about this, one need look no further than the so-called CutGo provision in this bill. That provision would require that, when an agency makes a new rule, it must offset the cost of that new rule for the repeal of an existing rule. This applies even if the new rule is in response to an imminent health or safety threat. Agency compliance with this CutGo provision would also be subject to judicial review, which prolongs the process even more. This would inevitably result in lengthy delays, as both industry and nonprofit groups routinely file challenges to agency decisions. President Obama has already issued two executive orders to eliminate unnecessary regulations. On January 18, 2011, he issued Executive Order 13563, requiring each agency to implement plans for reviewing existing rules. That executive order 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 review efforts. In November 2014, a report prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States highlighted the impact of these mandated reviews, concluding: ``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 has the authority and certainly the responsibility to conduct oversight to review existing agency rules and to recommend or mandate reforms, yet this bill would create a new commission, a new commission that would cost taxpayers $30 million to do what agencies and Congress are already supposed to be doing. In addition, the commission's report to Congress on the rules it recommends repealing would be subject to an up-or-down vote by the Congress. Congress would not be allowed to vote on each regulation individually, and this would usurp the authority of Congress. One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it would entrust this unelected commission with extraordinary and virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. Section 101(c) of the 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. This means that it could compel an individual to testify on any subject. For example, 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. This extraordinary subpoena power is especially troubling because the commission's jurisdiction is limitless. There is no restriction on what regulations the commission can review. Three prominent law professors with the Center for Progressive Reform sent a letter opposing an identical bill in the last Congress. The letter said this proposal 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.'' In addition, Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more than 150 consumer, labor, and good-government groups, also oppose the bill. This bill could have dangerous consequences for the health and safety of the American public; therefore, I strongly urge every Member to oppose it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. The SCRUB Act poses real and significant dangers to the health and welfare of the American public. By focusing predominantly on the cost of the rules, the SCRUB Act's CutGo provision will repeal rules with little regard for how they benefit and protect the American people. The commission's virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents, combined with its uncircumscribed ability to review and recommend repeal of any current rules, is an extraordinary grant of power that could have tragic repercussions for the health and safety of the American people. The SCRUB Act is a waste of $30 million of hard-earned taxpayer money for work that is already being done by Federal agencies. I strongly urge every Member to oppose this act. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), I offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the maker of the amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I have no further comments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, again I claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose this amendment even though it does nothing to change the substance of the SCRUB Act or reduce the danger that it poses to the health and safety of the American public. This amendment would add another criterion to identify which rules the commission would recommend for repeal, specifically, whether an agency has complied with the requirements of title 5 U.S.C., section 801(a)(1)(A). That section requires agencies, prior to promulgating a rule, to submit to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General a report containing a copy of the rule; a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule; and the proposed effective date of the rule. So this amendment would require this unelected commission to report to Congress on what information Congress has or has not received. This just underscores the point that Congress should do its own job rather than passing this bill to set up a commission to do our job for us. Like the other criteria in the bill, Representative McSally's amendment does nothing to address the SCRUB Act's focus on the costs of the rules. The amendment fails to make sense of the CutGo provision, which would result in the repeal of rules with little regard for how these rules have benefited and protected the American public. The amendment fails to address the fact that agencies are already doing a retrospective review of regulations. This amendment fails to reduce the $30 million price tag that the American public would be responsible for paying to create the unelected commission under this bill. The amendment fails to reduce the commission's virtually unlimited authority to subpoena witnesses or documents. This amendment is nothing more than a window dressing, and it is nice. It does not address any of the SCRUB Act's failings and dangers that it poses to the health and safety of all Americans. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution which would disapprove of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule that was finalized in August of 2016. The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires Federal contractors to be ``responsible,'' to have a satisfactory record of integrity, and business ethics. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule would require Federal contractors to self-report on violations of 14 fundamental Federal labor and nondiscrimination laws. This includes laws like the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; and the Civil Rights Act. These Federal laws apply to all businesses in the United States, and a vast majority of Federal contractors comply with them as well. Unfortunately, studies by the GAO, the Center for American Progress, and others show that there are a few bad apples that consistently violate these fundamental Federal labor laws, yet continue to be awarded Federal contracts. That is just plain wrong. Americans' tax dollars should not go to contractors who persistently and willfully violate such laws. It also puts contractors who do obey the law at an unfair disadvantage because they willingly bear the cost of compliance to provide safe and fair workplaces. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule would also improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal acquisition process by promoting healthy and productive workplaces. As the final rule notes, ``Contractors that consistently adhere to labor laws are more likely to have workplace practices that enhance productivity and increase the likelihood of timely, predictable, and satisfactory delivery of goods and services.'' This rule should be a win-win. It helps the Federal Government ensure compliance with fundamental labor and nondiscrimination laws and, at the same time, improve the efficiency of the Federal contracting process. I urge our Members to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived disapproval resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bobby Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, be allowed to control the time on this side.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5. Before I go into that, let me be clear. After listening to the leader a minute ago, I thank all of the Federal employees who work so hard and give so much and who are so often unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded. I oppose this unnecessary and potentially dangerous legislation in its entirety. However, I will focus my remarks on title V of this bill, which is in the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Title V, also known as the ALERT Act, is an attack on agency rulemaking, like the rest of this bill. This title would prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from taking into account benefits when providing estimating costs of proposed and final rules. That is not transparency. It is one side of the story. This bill would also prevent a rule from taking effect until certain information is posted online for 6 months by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 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. That is a 6-month delay in putting any rule in place no matter how big or how small. Right now, there are rules pending to protect the public from pipeline accidents involving hazardous liquids--those are our constituents, by the way--and to protect the privacy of patients' records. Again, those are our constituents. This bill would put an arbitrary 6-month moratorium on rules like these. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which is a coalition of over 150 labor, scientific, health and good government groups, sent a letter on January 10, 2017, opposing H.R. 5 to all Members of the House of Representatives. That letter read in part: The ALERT Act is designed to impede the government's ability to implement critical new public health and safety protections by adding a 6-month delay. This amounts to a 6- month regulatory moratorium even after the often lengthy period required for developing and finalizing these regulations. Such delays could extend well beyond that initial 6-month period should the OIRA Administrator fail to post the required information in a timely manner. The other titles of this bill are not any better and would impose so many requirements on agencies that issuing regulations to protect health and safety would be almost impossible. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this rule so that it can be amended to include consideration of H.R. 356, Protecting Our Democracy Act, which is sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) and yours truly. Mr. Speaker, we are presently in a struggle for the soul of our democracy. This legislation would create an independent commission to examine Russian attacks on our electoral process. I am pleased that all of my House Democratic colleagues have joined in this bill and that similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate. I want to be clear about why we are here today. It is not just about the past. It is about the future. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA have issued a declassified report warning that Russian entities acted under the orders of Vladimir Putin to execute ``an influence campaign,'' and they say they did this ``to undermine public faith in the United States democratic process.'' Again, I say: our democracy is under attack. Our intelligence agencies explain that Moscow's attacks will not end with the attacks they launched in 2016. They warn that Moscow ``will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to future influence efforts in the United States and worldwide. . . . '' Democracy under attack. These Russian attacks on our electoral process were attacks on our Constitution, our people, and they are attacks on our great Nation. Our intelligence agencies are warning that if we do not respond now, the Russians will attack us again. Mr. Speaker, we must not take our democracy for granted. We must guard this democracy. We must guard the fundamental foundation of that democracy, and that is a vote, and a vote with integrity. We are all Members of the Congress of the United States of America. We have taken an oath to protect and defend our Constitution and our great Nation. That is what this legislation is about. It is not about Donald Trump. It is not about Hillary Clinton. It is not about Republicans, Democrats, or independents. It is not even about 2016. It is about our future, and it is about generations yet unborn. We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from our solemn duty and our solemn oath. We cannot allow foreign attacks on our electoral process to become normal or inevitable. They are neither. This legislation attempts to rise above politics. If there was any moment in our history when we should be rising above politics, it is this moment. This commission is intended to be truly bipartisan, to have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, to examine how Russia and any other foreign powers interfered with our elections, including hacking Federal and State political parties and disseminating fake news stories intended to warp public opinion.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Most importantly, this bipartisan and independent commission will make recommendations to try to prevent any foreign power from interfering in our elections again. I sincerely hope Republicans, including the President-elect, who, for the first time ever, will swear his own oath to protect and defend our Constitution, will join us in supporting this independent commission. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this rule can be amended to require consideration of the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reflect, once again, on Senator Mikulski's vision for America and upon all that she has achieved in public life. On a personal note, I am deeply grateful that God has given me the opportunity to know and work with a woman who all would agree is a remarkable human being and a person I am honored to call my friend. Barbara Mikulski's progressive values are solid, and they are clear, and we have always known that she would fight for all of us every single day. Less well-known, however, is Barbara Mikulski's lifetime vision of bringing all of America's working families together in support of progressive change. Here is a dream that ties together her roots in Highlandtown, in Baltimore, with my own heritage from south Baltimore and west Baltimore. She is, indeed, a very, very special woman. She has never forgotten from whence she has come. One of the things I also love about Barbara Mikulski is that she consistently synchronizes her conduct with her conscience. We will miss her, but we know that Barbara will always be fighting for the people of our great city, for the great people of the State of Maryland, and for the people of these great United States.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 795. I introduced the House companion of this legislation, the Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act. We are taking up the Senate measure today to make sure this bill can be signed by the President before the end of this Congress. I want to thank Senator McCaskill for all of her hard work and Senator Johnson for all that he did to make this bill come to this point. I would also like to give special thanks to Chairman Chaffetz for being an original cosponsor and helping bring this bill to the floor. Our committee has always stood hand in hand with regard to protecting whistleblowers, and we have made it abundantly clear that we will do everything in our power to protect them from any type of retaliation or any type of harm. Whistleblowers are the front line of defense against waste, fraud, and abuse. Employees who work on Federal contracts and grants see firsthand when taxpayer money is being wasted. They risk their careers to challenge abuses of power and mismanagement of government resources. They must be protected against retaliation when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Just the other day, we had a witness come before our committee, and it was clear that she was very, very concerned about retaliation to the point of almost being shaken. You could actually see it. When we see these folks, we realize and we are reminded of the fact that they bring a very important resource to us as the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and that is they bring us information, information that allows us to be able to address problems that we wouldn't even know about if it were not for them. I thank Chairman Chaffetz and our entire committee for taking the attitude of protecting whistleblowers to the greatest extent we possibly can. This bill would ensure that more employees are protected by giving subgrantees and personal services contractors the same whistleblower protections currently given to contractors, grant recipients, and subcontractors. This bill also would make protections for civilian contractors and grantees permanent. These are protections that contractors and grantees of the Department of Defense already enjoy. I urge every Member of Congress to stand up for whistleblowers, to stand up for good government, and to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote in favor of this very important and meaningful legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6302, the Overtime Pay for Secret Service Agents Act of 2016. The bill would authorize an increase in the annual salary and overtime limit up to level II of the Executive Schedule so that Secret Service agents would be eligible to receive additional back pay for the considerable hours of overtime they worked in 2016. Last year, the Committee adopted a bipartisan report concluding that the Secret Service, and I quote, ``is experiencing a staffing crisis that threatens to jeopardize its critical mission'' due in large part to ``significant cuts imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.'' The unanimous report recommended that Congress, quote, ``ensure that Secret Service has sufficient funds to restore staffing to required levels.'' Providing this much-needed relief in the highly demanding 2016 presidential campaign year is a first and essential step towards fulfilling the Committee's recommendation. I appreciate the efforts that Chairman Chaffetz and his staff have made to address this issue, and I believe we are in agreement that we must pay the dedicated men and the women of the Secret Service for the overtime they worked in 2016. However, addressing just this one year retroactively does not go far enough. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents rank-and-file Secret Service agents, testified before our Committee that there should be a legislative fix to raise the overtime pay cap, and I quote, ``at a minimum, during a presidential campaign year.'' The witness added that although, quote, ``this last election season was unprecedented in many respects, we do not believe it will prove to be unique in the years ahead,'' and he stressed, quote, ``the importance of working together to find a permanent solution to the effect that the pay cap has on the USSS.'' The demands on Secret Service agents are likely to remain extremely high with the substantial resources needed to provide around-the-clock protective details for all 18 Trump family members--including the First Lady, five children and three of their spouses, and eight grandchildren. The announced plan to split time between the White House and the Trump tower in Manhattan would also add significant challenges and strain the resources of the Secret Service. That is why all Committee Democrats joined together to introduce H.R. 6318, the Fair Pay for Presidential Protection Act of 2016, to ensure that Secret Service agents are paid not just for the overtime they worked in 2016, but also for the overtime they will work in all future presidential years. Our legislation would also authorize a greater level of overtime compensation than H.R. 6302. I would also note that the Republican Leadership recently decided to change course and use a continuing resolution to fund the government at last year's spending levels through next March. Passing only this stopgap measure would mean Secret Service agents would not see an additional penny unless Congress includes additional funds in this spending bill. Otherwise, Secret Service agents may have to wait at least another four months without any additional compensation for their work in 2016. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, but I also hope the Committee will revisit this overtime pay issue next year so that the Secret Service will have a legislative solution in time for the 2020 election season.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which is yet another Republican assault on Federal employees and the Obama administration. Some Members claim this is a good-government bill. That is simply not true. This legislation is a mishmash of several bills that would damage employee rights, weaken public health and safety, and do little, if anything, to advance government reform. Although there are many troublesome provisions, I will focus on the more harmful parts of the legislation. First, this bill would allow agency heads to fire senior executives with little notice. A senior executive would be allowed to appeal an agency decision only after removal. The agency decision would be deemed final if an administrative law judge failed to issue a decision within 21 days. This could bind an executive to an agency's decision by default rather than by judgment on the merits of his or her case. That is simply unfair. Almost identical provisions were included in a law enacted in 2014 affecting the Department of Veterans Affairs. Not surprisingly, they are being challenged on constitutional grounds in the Federal circuit court of appeals. The Department of Justice has acknowledged some of the constitutional infirmities by choosing not to defend some of these provisions. This bill also would lengthen the probationary period for new employees from 1 year to 2 years. By this extended probationary period, these workers essentially would be at-will employees. They would have minimal due process rights if they are unfairly fired, and they would have minimal appeal rights if unwarranted disciplinary action is taken against them. I understand that this legislation is intended to provide agencies with more authority to root out so-called bad apples from the Federal workforce. However, I do not believe the solution to getting rid of a few bad apples is to attack the due process rights of millions of hardworking, dedicated Federal employees who serve the American people honorably every single day. These provisions would also endanger whistleblowers and make employees more vulnerable to retaliation for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse. History has shown why these due process protections are so necessary. I would like to read from a report issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board in 2015: ``Due process is there for the whistleblower, the employee who belongs to the `wrong' political party, the reservist whose periods of military service are inconvenient to the boss, the scapegoat, and the person who has been misjudged based on faulty information. Due process is a constitutional requirement and a small price to pay to ensure the American people receive a merit-based civil service rather than a corrupt spoils system.'' We must remember that Congress put in place these due process protections to eliminate this spoils system. Now by trying to move Federal employees back to being at-will employees, our Republican colleagues would be returning us to that broken and dangerous system. Another misguided provision in this bill would block the President from finalizing significant regulations during the last months of his term, even if those regulations have been in the works for an extended period of time. Blocking agencies from finalizing rules they had been working on for years just because it is the end of a President's term is not good policy and it is certainly not good governing. I include in the Record a letter from the American Association for Justice, dated February 29, 2016, and a letter from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, dated March 1, 2016. American Association for Justice, February 29, 2016. Re The Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016 (H.R. 4612). Hon. Elijah Cummings, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Cummings: AAJ urges members of the committee to oppose the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016 (H.R. 4612) which would impose a moratorium on any new proposed or final major regulations during the final months of this and future presidential administrations. This misguided bill would jeopardize crucial public protections by blocking regulations based on timing alone. It presumes the regulations which are proposed or finalized during the so-called ``midnight'' rulemaking period are rushed and inadequately vetted. Yet many of the regulations which this moratorium would apply to have been in the regulatory process for years. These regulations were delegated by Congress to agencies in order to protect children from toxic toys, families from tainted food, and consumers from financial exploitation. Furthermore, the need to ban such regulations has not been demonstrated. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) conducted an extensive study of regulations finalized near the end of previous presidential terms and found that found that the majority of the rules are either routine matters or tasks that were initiated before the Presidential transition period or the result of deadlines outside the agency's control (such as year-end statutory or court-ordered deadlines). It is also important to consider the varied regulations which could be impacted by this moratorium. One example is the pending Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) regulation on long term care that contains important protections for nursing home residents. This regulation could also offer nursing home residents protection from forced arbitration clauses. This rulemaking is scheduled to be finalized in the fall and has been on the CMS' regulatory agenda for three years. There is no reasonable basis to prevent CMS from implementing important protections for nursing home residents. This moratorium could impact a number of meaningful regulations aimed at improving the health, safety and welfare of the American people. Yet the need for such a drastic action is not supported. Under the guise of attacking the regulatory actions of the Obama Administration, this bill guts effective public health and safety measures and should not be tolerated. AAJ urges members of the committee to vote no on H.R. 4612, the Midnight Rule Relief Act of 2016. Sincerely, Linda A. Lipsen, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for Justice.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The letter from the American Association from Justice states: ``This misguided bill would jeopardize crucial public protections by blocking regulations based on timing alone. It presumes the regulations which are proposed or finalized during the so-called `midnight' rulemaking period are rushed and inadequately vetted. Yet many of the regulations which this moratorium would apply to have been in the regulatory process for years.'' Contrary to what our Republican colleagues may believe, the President is a President until January 20, 2017, according to the Constitution. Just as the Republicans are wrong for blocking the President's Supreme Court nominee in his last year of his term, this provision is also wrong, it is awfully wrong, for attempting to curtail the authority of a President of the United States to protect the interests of the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4361. I reserve the balance of my time.