Scott Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, since President Biden's first day in office, he has waged an unprecedented war on American energy. The cost, of course, is ultimately passed down to Americans. Let's break down a few critical missteps from the White House on energy policy. This administration has crippled U.S. energy independence, as seen by the administration's most recent decision to halt approvals for new natural gas export terminals. This administration has also made our country more dependent on foreign energy, propping up our adversaries, as seen by his decision to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, which impacted many hardworking Wisconsinites. The latest push from the administration seems to be a political agenda against gas vehicles, which, of course, will levy even higher costs on Americans who cannot afford an electric vehicle. House Republicans, on the other hand, have remained committed to making energy more affordable and putting American energy first. We passed the Lower Energy Costs Act, which received bipartisan support and will put the country on a path to responsibly power our future.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank over 4,700 credit unions across the Nation, including 111 in my home State of Wisconsin, who are improving the financial well-being of Americans and their communities. Starting this month, these credit unions are represented by a newly launched America's Credit Unions, which will serve 3.8 million Wisconsinites who are members of a credit union now. This new organization will be headquartered in the great State of Wisconsin. I congratulate them on this new endeavor. I have recently introduced legislation to allow credit unions to provide their members with an expanded offer of loan products. My bill, the Expanding Access to Lending Options Act, will increase the cap on the maturity of a loan from 15 to 20 years, allowing the flexibility to offer longer terms with lower monthly payments for consumers, while offering greater competition for lending products, including products for small business, student, and agricultural loans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bipartisan bill to support Wisconsin credit unions and their members.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would repeal the subpoena authority of the Treasury's Federal Insurance Office. Additionally, it removes the subpoena authority of the Office of Financial Research. For over 150 years, State insurance regulators and the law as passed by those State legislatures have regulated insurance companies, and it has worked out very well. The Federal Insurance Office, FIO, created under Dodd-Frank, has grown increasingly aggressive in collecting data from insurance companies, most recently issuing a proposed data collection to assess ``climate-related financial risk.'' Despite working with State regulators on previous efforts, FIO intentionally chose not to collaborate with State regulators on this climate data call. Not only has the office been unclear with how they intend to use the data they collect, but the effort would be duplicative in many ways as many States already collect a similar but maybe not exact set of data, as required by the Federal Government. Mr. Chair, any efforts by Treasury or FIO to sidestep State insurance regulators blatantly undermine congressional intent. That is why I introduced the Insurance Data Protection Act to repeal FIO's subpoena power. The amendment would have the same effect as the bill, and I am pleased many of my colleagues have supported that. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I once again say that State regulators have done a wonderful job in this area for many years, and I think they should continue to be the focus of any of this data collection. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds being made available to the FTC from being used to issue any rule defining or describing unfair methods of competition for purposes of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC has issued substantive rules concerning ``unfair methods of competition,'' UMC, as it is referred to in financial services, including a near-blanket ban on noncompete agreements. Since Chair Khan has taken over, the FTC has become a partisan weapon to enact sweeping antitrust policy that expands agency power and discards decades of precedent. Chair Khan is basing this authority on tenuous legal ground that predates the major questions doctrine. As the Supreme Court made clear in West Virginia v. EPA, an executive agency needs clear authorization from Congress to issue a regulation that has great ``economic and political significance.'' Unfair competition rulemaking would be a claim of quasi-legislative power that would distract the agency from its core mission of case-by- case expert application of the FTC Act through administrative adjudication. It would also be inconsistent with the explicit grants of rulemaking authority that Congress has given the FTC on consumer protection issues. This is not what they are looking for on competitive grounds. Allowing this much authority to the FTC, which oversees nearly all aspects of our economy, would open the door to significantly more harmful rules that would empower this administration to coerce companies to bow to what I consider to be a radical agenda. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, my short answer would be because this is our job, not the Commission's job. This is our job. That is the point of the amendment, to put the power back in the hands of Congress and not have these rogue agencies. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I simply, once again, urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from being made available to the FTC to enforce the suspension of early terminations to merger filings made under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. The FTC is authorized to terminate this waiting period early upon the request of the parties or on their own. After determining that the transaction does not pose significant competitive concerns, the ruling will be made. In February 2021, the early termination process was ``temporarily'' suspended due to the impact of COVID, and the suspension remains in place nearly 3 years later. Prior to the suspension, early termination was granted in approximately half of all reported transactions. The world obviously has moved on from COVID, and it is time for the FTC to move on, as well. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, I simply move an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a cost estimate for H.R. 288, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 495, I call up the bill (H.R. 288) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 288, Separation of Powers Restoration Act or SOPRA. The Constitution separates the powers of the Federal Government into a system of checks and balances. Article I, Section 1 grants Congress all legislative power, while executive power is granted to the President, and judicial power is vested in the courts, as we all know. However, since 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled that courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute rather than what Congress intended, the executive branch has begun usurping the legislative branch to issue regulations with the force of law. This consolidation of power departs from the constitutional principles and harms our own liberties. It is certainly not what our Founders intended. Yet, this 1984 ruling, known as Chevron, has paved the way for unelected bureaucrats to issue sweeping rules with no consequences. Just in 2021, for example, executive branch agencies issued more than 3,200 rules that imposed vaccine mandates on workers. They were also involved in overturning the Keystone pipeline, and required a $15 minimum wage for Federal contractors, and allowed the IRS to spy on Americans' bank accounts. Meanwhile, that same year, only 143 bills passed by Congress were signed into law. This means executive branch agencies impose more than 20 times as many mandates as actual legislators. These regulations are not without cost. According to the American Action Forum, Federal agencies collectively finalized $200 billion in regulatory costs in 2021, equivalent to more than $600 per U.S. household. In 2022, we saw an additional $117 billion in regulatory costs added to the bottom line. Taken with rules from previous administrations and according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the total annual costs of regulation is almost $2 trillion, or about 8 percent of the U.S. GDP. If it were a country, for comparison, U.S. regulation would be the world's 8th largest economy, only behind France. If Members of this Chamber impose that kind of cost on taxpayers-- well, we know what would happen--we would all be voted out of office. Yet, the Biden administration continues to issue binding rules and courts continue to apply the Chevron doctrine when determining its statutory authority. It is no surprise to see that the President will probably oppose this legislation and promise to veto it. Just 5 months into 2023, and we have already seen his administration circumvent Congress to make changes to non-competes, require climate disclosures by Department of Defense contractors, and ban the use of pistol braces nationwide. An unchecked administrative state is dangerous to the American people. That is why it is imperative that Congress regain its legislative power by passing H.R. 288. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act would displace Chevron and other precedents that require courts to defer to agency positions. It ensures that courts independently consider what Congress has said through its statutes rather than putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Federal agencies. By forcing courts to apply de novo review, the standard would reclaim the courts' constitutional role as the branch that interprets the law, and Congress' role will once again be underscored as the branch that writes them. Agencies are not supposed to make laws, and it is past time to bring the power of legislating back to the branch our Founders intended. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Jordan for his leadership on the issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 288.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I remind everyone that SOPRA is not deregulatory. That has not been the goal at all. The goal is to forward this discussion between what should be legislative powers and the administration so that, in the future, it also sets a ground floor for many of the statutes. Congress remains free to regulate in a very detailed way and so do the administrative agencies. I have heard this before. We heard it in committee, that somehow we were setting up or juxtaposing these two different goals, and it just isn't true. I think that the other thing we would see is that you would find that legislators would do a much better job of drafting bills in the first place. I mean, shame on us if we leave a piece of legislation so vague that it opens the door for an administrative agency to somehow go in and interpret. There are many times when the scope of the legislation is the first thing that should be determined before you even sit down and actually write the bill. So, I know it is a criticism that has existed, but I don't think it is valid. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The other thing I will mention came up in our discussions during the committee. When you find yourself in a situation--we just had this discussion in relationship to the REINS Act--where the administrative powers continue to kind of escalate and bloom out from that original piece of legislation, what you will find is, later on, that has to be revisited because oftentimes it is done hastily, doesn't make sense, is arbitrary in nature. It is very difficult for legislators to even read through those powers that have been granted and try to make sense of that. It is another thing that came up in committee that I think is valid. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The other thing I will relay is that SOPRA does not turn judges into legislators. SOPRA helps to restore the court's constitutional role as the branch that construes the law. Specifically, SOPRA requires that courts apply de novo review to all relevant questions of law when reviewing agency action. This means that the courts, not agencies, will interpret what a law means. In other words, SOPRA enhances, not violates, the separation of powers under our Constitution. Within that discussion, the interpretation of the law is also something that I think would, once again, focus where we are. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again, I will say that by forcing the courts to apply the de novo review, this standard would reclaim the court's constitutional role as the branch that interprets the laws and Congress' role as the branch that writes them. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen travel delays, I was unable to be recorded for votes on Monday, June 5, 2023. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 245 and YEA on Roll Call No. 246.