Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As chairman of the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee, I recognize the importance of judicial security needs. Federal judges hear cases involving hardened criminals on a regular basis. Although not everyone threatens a Federal judge and not everyone is a gang member, many are. Federal judges and their families should not be at risk for simply doing their jobs. Congress provides funding for a variety of judicial security needs by building secure court houses, staffing metal detectors at entrances, and so on, but there is a simple way to address security needs without extending taxpayer dollars. One method is to redact specific information from judicial financial disclosure reports done by the judges and other key employees. If they are to be targeted, we cannot have a judge's home address or other information that allows tracking by a criminal to, in fact, be a source of their demise. The redaction authority has been in place since Congress began, in 1998, to allow for this, and it has been extended and expanded, in a number of cases, to include family members. The redaction process requires input and agreement from the U.S. Marshals Service. The legislation that my colleague from New York (Mr. Jeffries) and I introduced would extend the redaction authority for an additional 10 years, until December 31, 2027. There is no financial impact from this, and it serves to put judges and their families in a position they have historically been in since 1998: less at risk by this information being disclosed. I not only urge the House to support this legislation, but after careful consideration and research, we find that this authority has not been abused, it has been properly used, and the Federal judges have earned the absolute right to this limited redaction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would close by urging my colleagues to support this well-thought-out, well authored, and in regular hearings by the committee, universally accepted as necessary and reasonable for a 10-year extension. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives rightfully took action to respond to the impact of Hurricane Harvey, by approving disaster relief through a supplemental appropriations resolution. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present during the earlier vote. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 502. I am pleased to see the measure passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support and look forward to the Senate taking similar action to bring much-needed aid to the victims that continue to face the devastating effects of this momentous storm.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marine Captain Sean Endecott Elliott of south Orange County who died serving his country in a fatal KC-130 Cargo Plane Crash in Leflore County, Mississippi on July 10, 2017. After graduating from the University of California Davis in 2009, Sean joined the United States Marine Corps where he attained the rank of Captain in 2013. He went on to become an aircraft commander for the KC-130 and fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming both a pilot and a Marine. A star tennis player known affectionately by his Marine Corps call sign ``Puffin'' Sean Elliott was a fine soldier who proudly served his country. He accomplished so much for such a young man having been awarded the Navy and Marine Corps achievement medal, two sea service deployment ribbons, a Korean defense service medal, two global war on terrorism expeditionary medals, a global war on terrorism service medal, and a national defense service medal. Sean Elliott touched the lives of all those he met. He leaves behind his loving wife Catherine and his family in San Juan Capistrano. I hope his memory will continue to bring happiness to the lives of his family and friends. I know that no words can describe the overwhelming grief of his family and friends at this time. The only consolation we here can offer is the thanks of the grateful nation he served and our pledge to support his and all other military families across our country. Sean remains a hero whose memory will continue to provide strength, courage, and inspiration to others. I thank him for the sacrifice he made to protect our country and to help those who long for peace and freedom. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones and to his fellow Marines. This unimaginable tragedy reminds us all to cherish those who serve.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass from Oceanside who died serving his country aboard the USS Fitzgerald. Shingo was a fine young sailor who proudly served his country. For such a young man he had accomplished so much. I know no words can describe the overwhelming grief of his family and friends at this time. The only consolation we here can offer is the thanks of the grateful nation he served and our pledge to support his and all other military families across our country. Shingo remains a hero whose memory will continue to provide strength, courage and inspiration to the others. I thank him for the sacrifice he made to protect our country and to help those who long for peace and freedom. I would also like to commend the crew of the USS Fitzgerald for all their efforts to save lives and their ship. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones and his fellow sailors. This unimaginable tragedy reminds us all to cherish those who serve.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Lester Irwin Tenney of Carlsbad, California, who recently passed away on February 24, 2017 at the age of 96. I am proud to recognize his memory as his Congressman and admire his life's work to strengthen ties with our allies in Japan. Dr. Tenney served our nation during World War II on the 192nd Tank Battalion in the Philippines. Immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor, his battalion continuously fought against the Japanese assault until his commanders surrendered on April 9, 1942. He became a Prisoner of War and survived the infamous Bataan Death March, while thousands of his American and Filipino counterparts perished. He was then forced to work in a Japanese coal mine until the conclusion of the war. Upon returning to the U.S., Dr. Tenney studied business at San Diego State University, taught finance at Arizona State University, and started his own financial planning firm. After publishing his memoirs documenting the atrocities he experienced as a POW, Dr. Tenney made it his mission to forgive his captors and establish friendships with Japanese citizens. As national commander of the Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor, he met the Japanese Ambassador to the United States, Ichiro Fujisaki, and arranged for a public apology on behalf of Japan to the surviving POWs. He also worked with the Japanese government to establish the U.S.-Japan POW Friendship Program, which allows former POWs and their families to visit Japan annually. Finally, Dr. Tenney received a personal apology from Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2015 and just last month received a letter of apology from Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, one of the companies that profited from POW labor at the time. I have been fortunate enough to know Dr. Tenney. His courage and tenacity are an inspiration to all, and his moving story demonstrates how much impact one person can have on world affairs. Dr. Tenney's legacy is admirable and his impressive achievements in U.S.-Japan relations will be remembered for years to come. He is survived by his wife, Betty, and his son, two stepsons, seven grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. I extend my condolences to his family in this difficult time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the tenth anniversary of Public.Resource.Org, a nonprofit organization promoting openness and transparency in all three branches of the federal government. In the past decade, organizations like Public Resource have been instrumental in utilizing modern technology and the Internet as vehicles to make the proceedings and reports of the House of Representatives readily available to the general public. While I served as Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, our staff worked with Public Resource to upload a video archive of all its proceedings to the Internet and used official transcripts to add closed captioning to our hearings. In addition to the Oversight Committee, their team uploaded over 3,000 hearings from all committees to the Internet Archive, particularly documenting activity in the House from 2005 through 2011. In the Judicial Branch, Public Resource published all the historical opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals and millions of pages of briefs from significant judicial opinions. They also worked with numerous executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Archivist of the United States, the National Technical Information Service, and the Internal Revenue Service to post thousands of government videos and upload over 9 million tax documents of nonprofit organizations for the public record. As the organization celebrates this milestone, I would like to congratulate Public Resource for its service to Congress and the ongoing effort to provide American citizens with the tools they need to scrutinize the activities of the federal government.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, floor debate is both for the people in the room and the people watching. Many of the new Members have not yet voted on a substantive piece of legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I reach out with a little piece of history--a large piece of history, perhaps--for the freshmen of both parties. First of all, this legislation is bipartisan. It is sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. Second of all, when Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and I were 16 years younger, in March of 2001, it was the last and only time that the underlying law allowed for a regulation to be repealed. It was prominently called ergonomics. It was repealed. I had the honor of voting for that as a freshman. Since that time, in spite of the many regulations that some people don't like in one party or another, we have not seen fit to have a joint resolution repeal a regulation. So let's talk about what it takes to do that. It takes both Houses of the Congress and the President of the United States to repeal a regulation created by a bureaucrat, or many bureaucrats--a regulation that may or may not be consistent with the law passed by this body, by the Senate, and by a President in this or a previous Congress. Again, for the freshmen, we are the body that creates laws, and we do so through a complex and difficult procedure. We pass it out of the House or Senate. We then pass it out of the other body. If the President signs it, it then still is subject to court challenge. Now, let's go through the regulatory process: Proposed by a bureaucrat, given a period of time in which dissenters may be 100 percent, and still it becomes law if this body does not act. So now that gives you a little feel for the underlying law. Used once on a bipartisan basis to take back an unpopular regulation that has never been resubmitted under both 8 years of a Republican and 8 years of a Democrat in the White House, and I repeat, the regulation that was previously recalled was so in error that it has never been redone in 16 years by two Presidents. Now, let's talk about the bill we have before us today. We all know that the House is a body that, when it wants to, can move fairly quickly, and the Senate is a body that seemingly moves quickly only in recess. The fact is that the Senate takes a long time, and we have many regulations that may or may not be considered now or in the future. All this legislation does is allow for us to dispose of one or more regulations in an expedited fashion in this body and have it seen in the same form in the Senate. Nothing more than that. It doesn't change the underlying law. It doesn't change the fact that the House, the Senate, and a President must concur on taking back what is essentially a law--that is what a regulation is--created by bureaucrats not elected by any of us. So let's keep it as simple as that. For the freshmen of either party, when you go to make a vote on this, remember, we are not changing the underlying law. Only one regulation under the underlying law has ever been repealed, and it was bipartisan in both the House and the Senate when it was repealed. It has been 16 years, and the few that will likely be considered under this act and the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few regulations that are believed to be unnecessary and for which the House, the Senate, and the President concur. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute of my time to the gentleman.

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I won't be long. There is nothing mundane about what we are doing here. Every day in America, Congress passes a law maybe, but every working day in America, the bureaucracy passes regulations. The fact is, the American people know that the so-called regulatory state that has developed during the last half century means that, whether Congress is in session or not, new laws are being created, new rules that cause people in real America, working people and their companies, to have to figure out what new hurdle they have to jump over just to earn a living. That is what we are talking about here, that at least when those are grossly exceeded under the underlying law and intention of Congress, Congress--the House, the Senate--in concert with the President, may, in fact, use the same tool, essentially the making of law, in this case to rescind to law. I just want to again speak to the younger Members who may not know the history of this. All we are really talking about here in this act is, in fact, a law created to take away a regulation. What we are going to vote on will allow for, one, two, half a dozen regulations, if there were that many that we think are wrong, through our normal lawmaking process, in many ways, to be rescinded. The House has to vote a majority, the Senate has to vote a majority, and the President has to sign it. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between that and any other legislative business that we do here. Now, I have worked with John Conyers both as a minority member and as my chairman. He is a good man. In this case, I believe that if he looked more broadly at the question of Congress' responsibility to review laws made outside of this body that he would support me. Notwithstanding not getting his support in this case, we do have both Republicans and Democrats on this bill. I expect that on the vote, in both the House and the Senate, it will be bipartisan, and any piece of regulatory law that would come before this body and the Senate, I am confident, would have bipartisan support in order to rescind a bad regulation. So I think for those who are concerned about the regulations somehow running amok, no regulation will be rescinded under this law any different than any normal piece of legislation passed out of the House and the Senate and signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Tennessee has been a good friend on many issues. I know he is passionate about regulations and laws that he would like to have passed, and so am I. All of us in Congress have seen that it is extremely easy--the longer you are here, the more you will see it--it is extremely easy to stop something here. The same is true about those 61 or so regulations. Any combining of regulations, unless they are overwhelmingly disapproved, actually makes them harder to pass. We are not going to put 61 pieces of legislation, each of which has at least one or two or three or a dozen Republicans who vehemently oppose that regulation being rescinded. The fact is it is only the worst of the worst that are going to be stayed through this process and then reevaluated by the new administration. I will mention, though, for my colleagues on the other side of this debate today, that we do appropriations every year. The American people, and for the freshmen who haven't voted on appropriations yet, think of appropriations as somehow different than the law. It really isn't. Appropriation is simply a law that provides funding. Every appropriation bill during the entire nearly 8 years of President Obama has been some form of a continuing resolution or an omnibus. But as my colleague from Tennessee knows, every one of those has had dozens to hundreds of laws attached to them. We call them riders. We have terms for them. The fact is that a single appropriations bill, often done just before the end of funding of the government, always--always--has dozens, if not hundreds, of laws attached to it. So the idea that we don't group together things which are relatively noncontroversial, that will cause someone to still vote for the bill in spite of it being in there, would be to be dishonest to the freshmen who need to know that we do for efficiency bring together things that we can pass en bloc, and we do it all the time--and even major legislation. I dare say, the Affordable Care Act and others are, in fact, multiple pieces of legislation put together in one package. So lest our freshmen who are about to take their first vote on a piece of legislation--or one that could have a major impact-- misunderstand, bringing together multiple pieces into one bill is common, but it is always done in order to gain votes or to maintain votes. In fact, you do it at your folly if you lose votes. I would say to my friend and colleague from Michigan that there is no likelihood that 61 pieces of regulation will be put together because there is no chance that there would be 61 pieces that even all Republicans would agree should be revoked. I would imagine the number would be less. I suspect that if my bill said 2 or 5 or 10, it would still be opposed for the same reason, which is that it creates inefficiency if there are multiple generally agreed bad pieces of legislation that need to be considered. Lastly, and I am not closing, but I think this may be one of my closing remarks, for freshmen to understand, this isn't even about the House. We have the procedures in the House where we could put these together. This is about the Senate that can take 60 hours, 60 legislative hours or more, to do one piece of legislation. We know that the Senate has confirmations to do of judges and appointees for the Cabinet, and they have other legislative work, and we cannot afford to have them backed up now or in the future if there are multiple regulations that need to be rescinded. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Florida, I am sure, is well intended, but there is nothing more transparent than calling up to the floor of this House and debating the removal of regulations that have been found to be excessive or extreme or simply not consistent with the law. That is a transparent process. The term ``regular order,'' in fact, could not be more appropriate to that process. We passed a law nearly three Presidents ago, if you will, that simply called for this procedure. All I am saying is we should not be mired down, if there are five or six or eight bad regulations, in not combining them together for purposes of getting them disposed of in a timely fashion. I might suggest to everyone that they remember that many of us did not support the regulation change yesterday as to the ethics oversight, because we do believe in transparency and will continue to believe in transparency. Again, nothing is more transparent than bringing to the House floor the debate about something that is believed to have been wrong done by unelected bureaucrats. ``Bureaucrat'' is not a dirty word, but ``unelected'' fits this process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I served on the Small Business Committee with Ms. Velazquez a long time ago. One thing that we all know is, with regard to that committee, the NFIB--the National Federation of Independent Business--and small business groups alike are something we look at, even NAM--the National Association of Manufacturers--and, of course, the Chamber. All of those organizations support this legislation. They have written letters in support, and I include in the Record those letters. The following is a list of supporters of H.R. 21, the Midnight Rules Relief Act: American Action Forum, American Center for Law and Justice, American Commitment, American Energy Alliance, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity-- Key Vote, Americans for Tax Reform, Associated Builders and Contractors, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Concerned Women for America. Family Business Coalition, FreedomWorks, Heating Air- conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), International Franchise Association, Let Freedom Ring, National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED), National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation for Independent Business, R Street Institute, SBE Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are hearing many people talk about important regulations and of their somehow being taken out. Let's understand that regulations can go both ways. These changes and the underlying law can also protect the other way. The fact is now we are in the future. You could have an administration that, in its final days, changes regulations to make them more lenient to large businesses, more lenient to polluters, more lenient to the employers to the detriment of their employees. Regulations can go both ways, and only the most extreme regulations--literally one since the enactment of the underlying legislation--has ever been repealed. I don't want to belittle my own legislation, but let's understand that there won't be 61 en bloc being brought. There will be some, I hope, and there may be more than one. Yet for Congress to take back, piece by piece, its responsibility and then live up to that responsibility should be all of our goals. Now, this legislation was limited to midnight rules. Let's understand that midnight rules are the rules done in the waning days of an administration--7-plus years into this administration--and many of these rules, in fact, were enacted after the last vote of the people. I think it is important to understand that, on election day, the American people delivered a resounding message to Washington: stop the regulatory, Big Government onslaught that is killing jobs. One of my colleagues earlier spoke of the fact that we had had so many jobs--15 million jobs--created in the last 8 years. The percentage of the workforce that is working in America today is the smallest in my lifetime. It is smaller than it was 8 years ago, 16 years ago, or 21 years ago. We are not creating jobs at the rate of our population. We should not have some sort of an accolade for regulations having created a great economy if, in fact, that economy has grown less than 2 percent a year and has not kept up with any historic 8-year period. To me, that is an important part. Although the discussion I just had was about more than regulations, let's understand that the growth of regulations--of lawmaking--is certainly not the creator of jobs. I think, when we look at the cost--and that is a lot of what we are dealing with in the manager's amendment in this bill--we are dealing with the recognition that we are looking at regulations in light of how much they cost. Now, that cost is based on independent scoring. It is not the administration's scoring and it is not my scoring. It is that of the Congressional Budget Office's, an independent agency that doesn't always give a score I want, but the score is not arrived through partisan activities. I reach out again to the Members who may not yet know that what we are asking is simply to assert our normal ability in Congress and put together one or more ideas for the efficiency of the body, to send it from here to the Senate, and from the Senate to the President. What we are proposing in this legislation as a small change to the underlying legislation that has been with us for three Presidents is, in fact, consistent with this body's doing its job, in regular order, in the clear light of day. I think the important message for this piece of bipartisan legislation is: we are taking back a limited amount of our capability, trying to streamline it, and giving the President an opportunity to accept or reject a piece of legislation voted on by a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate before it gets to the President. The President, if he feels we have included even one regulation inappropriately that he would like to retain, would veto our bill. Lastly, I beg everyone to look at this for what it is, not for what others say it is, because it is simply Congress doing its job in an efficient fashion and consistent with 20-plus years of history and with there being only one piece--one time--when a regulation was withdrawn. No President since that time has tried to produce or has asked Congress to pass a law so as to put into effect a regulation that, on a bipartisan basis, the House, the Senate, and a President thought should go. I urge the support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I remember Chairman Ed Towns who used to say when someone ran on: The gentleman's time has long expired. I think we might have that situation here, but I am going to give the gentlewoman from Florida a moment more in just a moment. The motion to recommit specifically sends it back to the committee. That is not necessary. The fact is that if she wanted these changes and wanted them enacted immediately there is a procedure to do so. So I rise in opposition because this is certainly something that would delay, would send this back to committee, and cause it to come back again. I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a question, if she wouldn't mind: Is there a regulation in those 61 that would be affected by this that would affect any of the provisions that you cited in your amendment?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman answer the question. Is there 61, according to the ranking member, pieces of regulation that could be in the window? I just wondered if you had one regulation by the Obama administration that concerned any of these issues that you had in the act.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask that the gentlewoman, if there are some, place them in the Record. I don't know of any in the 61 that were granted, let's say, after June. What I will say is that the reason I will be voting and urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit is not the regulations that she alludes to but, in fact, the fact that this would kill the bill by sending it back and having it delayed further. So, in order to pass it today, because she did not set it up to exclude these items and have them immediately considered, I cannot support her motion to recommit. What I will say is that when we look at regulations to put into a package that may be a package of one or a package, if this passes, of more than one, I certainly will expect that those regulations will have to do with things which could have been done sooner, would have been done sooner, and were done in the waning days of the administration for no reason that was time sensitive. The Affordable Care Act was passed in the first days of the administration. If there is something in the last days of the administration that has merit, I certainly would urge my colleagues not to rescind that regulation. But if there is something that should have been done in year one, two, three, four, five, or six, I would ask why it wasn't done then. Having said that, it is unfortunate that this motion to recommit was written in a way that would send it back to committee and, thus, cause a substantial delay. I would caution my colleagues that, at least from this Member, if you have a motion to recommit and you want the amendment itself considered, make it one that is immediate and not back to committee. The difference, I think, is important. The Parliamentarian simply can advise on how to write one that would prevent it having to get, if you will, another delay of days or weeks. I urge opposition to the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I was too far away to return for the vote in time. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay' on rollcall No. 607. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mrs. Juanita C. Hayes for her years of service to the communities of the greater San Diego area. Mrs. Hayes is a vital member of our local societies and is well- known in the public relations sector of San Diego. Prior to working at the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), she owned a consulting business for eighteen years. With her own company, she helped to coordinate successful, high profile events such as the 1985 Presidential/Vice Presidential Inaugural Gala, the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, San Diego's Super Bowl XXXII Radio City Productions, and the National Republican Conventions of 1988, 1992, and 1996. Mrs. Hayes additionally dedicated time in public service as the Chief of Staff to former California State Assemblywoman Tricia Hunter. In addition to her success in private enterprises, Mrs. Hayes has provided decades of mentorship to nonprofit organizations, civic groups, and other small business owners in the San Diego region. She has held crucial community leadership positions, such as the Chief Executive Officer of the San Marcos Chamber of Commerce, where membership grew by over one hundred businesses during her tenure. As she joined SDG&E in 2005, she also became the Director of Outreach and Development for the College of Business Administration at the California State University San Marcos. Mrs. Hayes has spent the last eleven years with SDG&E, focusing on critical infrastructure and energy programs to maintain reliability for the thousands of customers it supplies. Now retiring as Public Affairs Manager, I commend Mrs. Juanita C. Hayes for her decades of service to the community, and send best wishes to her and her husband, Dr. Ash Hayes, as they enjoy her new retirement in San Marcos, California.