Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Presidents from both parties have made a habit of midnight rules. And although here today we hear about 18 years of a deliberative process on beryllium, 18 years of consideration and it has to be passed in the last few days of a departing administration? What was the administration doing for 8 years? How deliberative can one be? The fact is these are not accidents. Midnight rules are, in fact, deliberately held to the end of an administration. That is the reason they are called midnight rules. Now, having said that, the bill today, H.R. 5982, is not, in fact, about midnight rules. We already have legislation to take care of that. What we don't have is an effective way to do it when we are dealing with, perhaps, 100, 120, 150, and, if not checked, perhaps more, in times to come, midnight rules from an outgoing administration. We are talking today about the balance of power, about whether Congress should be efficient and effective in its ability to consider legislation. In this case, legislation done by the other branch, a branch not constitutionally allowed to do legislation. Let's remember, regulations are, in fact, a loan to the executive branch to clarify legislation done by this body. If we believe that they do not fairly and appropriately interpret our legislation in their rulemaking, if we believe they exceeded the authority or the meaning of the legislation, whether passed just a few days ago, a few years ago, or, in fact, a century ago, we have an obligation to bring up, consider, and respond. In fact, rulemaking, as we know it, is, in fact, something that if the gentleman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, wanted to, he could bring up the regulation as a law and consider it in this body at any time. I believe it is pretty clear that the objection in this case is an anticipated objection to the efficiency of being able to deal with one or two regulations at the end of a Presidency. We have an obligation to deal with all of them in a fair way. Now, one thing that was missed in this is nothing in this legislation requires that we take them all up at the same time. In the next Congress, it certainly would be appropriate for Members who wanted to have longer debate to ask for longer debate on the overall vote, or, in fact, to break it into pieces and ask for that. That is true in this body and it is true in the other body. As a matter of fact, the other body hasn't even created rules yet and certainly could create rules that would define further debate on midnight rules. So I think today what we are really talking about is: Will Congress live up to its responsibility to the American people to, in fact, be the bastion of law creation, whether laws are created by this body directly or in the review of regulations created by an administration on behalf of this body? Ultimately, we own responsibility for laws and regulations, whether they work or don't work. Lastly, this body has not done nearly enough to review regulations and their effect. During my tenure on another committee, over and over again I saw regulations by both administrations I have served under to create regulations that they said would cost little or nothing. By the time they come to pass, we discover they almost inevitably have a greater impact to our economy, adverse impact in many cases, than forecasted. That review is another area that we should do. But for today, this simple piece of legislation is only asking that Congress live up to its responsibility and do so in a way that would not tie up weeks or months of either body simply to decide that a regulation needs to be sent back for further review and, perhaps, reissued in a fashion more consistent with the laws created by this body and signed by previous Presidents.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised at my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson). Since I am the author of the bill, I would say that for the 16 years I have been in Congress, I have been deliberating this piece of legislation, so it certainly is not new. In much more seriousness, to call this not regular order is simply inaccurate. This has been discussed in multiple hearings, and it went through regular order with a full committee markup. So I would hope that the gentleman would reevaluate his words and recognize that half- baked would be inappropriate. This was fully vetted, and he had time for all the amendments we are hearing today at the time it was in committee.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and let us continue that tone. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It carves out rules pertaining to critical matters of national security. As we know, with President Obama, President-elect Trump, and any other President, they have huge powers of executive authority when it comes to national security. So to exclude something under the guise that it would be national security would inherently undermine the intent of the rule. I always find it interesting that people internalize and personalize something. In this case, there is nothing better that this President could do for the American people--and perhaps for regulations that he would oppose in the future--than to sign this legislation. The fact is President Obama likely objects to many of the regulations that would come out of the new Trump administration. There is no better time than now to reassert or allow to be reasserted the power of a Congress, a Congress that might very well reject President-elect Trump's legislation or regulations in the future. So the reality is, although the gentlewoman from Texas would have you believe that this was a personal attack on our President, it is not an attack on our President. It is not an attack on our next President. It is, in fact, a law that would allow Congress to reassert, in an efficient way, the authority which is constitutionally, inherently, and always ours. For decades, perhaps two centuries plus, we have yielded the power, the right, and the responsibility of this body in appropriations, in regulations, and even in spending of a number of areas in taxation to the executive branch. We can yield to the executive branch, but we cannot run away from our responsibility. A regulation--ten regulations, a hundred regulations, or a thousand regulations that are disapproved by the American people and, from them through us, needs to be dealt with in an efficient fashion. So do I disagree with this? Yes. Sadly, I disagree with the gentlewoman from Texas' characterization of the nature of this legislation. This legislation does not expire a few weeks or months from now, and it is intended to go on. Lastly, to say we have already passed legislation in this Congress would imply that it was run through the Senate and signed by the President and, as a result, the reform is in place. No such thing is the case. I would offer the gentlewoman from Texas in the next Congress to work with her on such legislation as would be signed by the next President. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I have served in this body for almost exactly 16 years; and I have observed the extremely rare times that a resolution of disapproval comes to this body. So I think if we can set a tone for the remainder of the debate, the tone should be set in recognition that these resolutions are rare. And they never--I repeat, never in my 16 years--and the gentlewoman and I have served a similar time--never have I seen one that is as well-founded as dealing with the safety of potentially explosives. Those kinds of regulations are routinely run through fairly quickly with congressional oversight and encouragement. So I think we have to set the tone and ask how many times--Ranking Member Conyers has served longer than anyone in this room--how many times have we brought these up. The fact is, even under this en bloc, it will be a small portion of those regulations created in the last days of an outgoing administration.

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleague consider his two amendments en bloc if he would. I would be happy to yield to make sure time is sufficient.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, on this en bloc pair of amendments, I have two very different reasons for objecting. In the case of the portion that is the Director of Office of Management and Budget, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and I spent an amazing amount of time over the years looking at times in which OMB makes an estimate and then the reality is dramatically different. So to carve out based on the Office of Management and Budget, which is a Cabinet-level, partisan appointment of the President, would have one believe that it is perfect. The reality is not only is it not perfect, but its track record tends to be very self-serving. Just the amount of times in which CBO scores very differently would cause all of us to know that this is not a good enough reason for a carve-out. Having said that, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia on both CBO and OMB scoring reform in the next Congress because I think we have a long way to go to get numbers right. If we get numbers right on both regulations and proposed laws, we can all do a better job. In the case of the second portion of these two, I have to say that climate change has been unfairly made a political issue. The world is getting warmer; we know that. How much of it is caused by various things, we need to know, and I would hope that regulations would not be a source of that. But this President has, by many of his own statements, taken great credit for his use of a pen and a phone to make decisions related to his view of a single cause of climate change, that being carbon. The fact is I look forward to working with any President on sensible regulations, but those regulations have to be consistent with the laws passed and the regulatory options given to the other branch. It is for that reason that we have the ability to disapprove. So again, I would hope we all not look at specific regulations that may or may not be contested by the next Congress and, instead, look more appropriately at should we have the efficiency to consider maybe 20, maybe 10, maybe only 4 en bloc, all as one, or maybe in two separate. The reality is efficiency of the process of disapproval does not for a moment change the responsibility and authority of this body. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. I won't use it all. I thank the chairman, and I thank my colleague from Virginia. Let me take a moment to reflect, perhaps, on something that my colleague and friend said. During my tenure with Mr. Connolly, our committee sent 23 pieces of legislation to the President that he signed; we sent 74 to the other body. So if there is an enemy, perhaps it is the great bipartisan legislation that left the House and never got to the President. The President signed all 23 pieces of legislation, though, that got through the Senate, including legislation that Mr. Connolly and I worked on together. Since my leaving that committee, additional legislation has come through that committee on a bipartisan basis, including a huge expansion of the Freedom of Information Act. I would hope that in these last days, we would reflect on the successes of this Congress and the successes of our outgoing President because, in fact, for all that we all do in the performance of our oversight role, we also have had fine and notable successes and good legislation under this President; and I would like to take this moment to take note that, in fact, the President has signed the vast majority of legislation that left here on a bipartisan basis, including a piece of legislation that Mr. Connolly was critical on. I yield to the gentleman if he has any further comment.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long time coming, and there is a lot of thanks to go around. Certainly for Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy, this is going to be a proud week with the passage of this bill in the House and, ultimately, it going to the President. I don't believe this would have been possible without the partnership that Elijah Cummings and I formed some years ago. The House has led in not just one, but in two Congresses, sending to the Senate very tough language dramatically improving what we see as the flaws in FOIA that have developed. Congresswoman Maloney, very rightfully so, said there are a lot of things that the interest groups and Congressman Cummings and myself and, perhaps, everyone else who will vote on it here today would like to have seen. I don't want to belabor the point, but when this bill becomes law and is signed by the President, there will be enough left for a new bill to start again. Having said that, we celebrate today the fact that we have made some milestones. Codifying in law the presumption of openness and, once and for all, ending the deliberative process' unlimited length and reducing it to 25 years long, long after a President has left office, is a good start. I want to note that, in the original House bill--one area that I was particularly pleased that Mr. Cummings and I were able to come to an agreement on--if an agency unreasonably delays, there should be a result. If someone has to sue, whether it is The New York Times or an interest group, and, ultimately, the government is unreasonable and is withholding, reasonable fees should be recovered. That isn't in the bill. I hope that it will be in future legislation. The fact is that this bill includes some very important points, not the least of which will be making more public and accessible the repeated request for various parts of FOIA, and, of course, reducing the delays and the time lag. Having said that, through the establishment of a board and the recognition that only through diligence and closing the quality circle that occurs can we come back to this body and say more needs to be done and name it. But today is a day for celebration. I want to thank Mr. Cummings one more time, Chairman Chaffetz, the Members of the House and the Senate, urge the passage of the bill, and recognize that this is, in fact, a 50-year-old law. It has stood the test of time. It has proven to be an asset for the American people and for their right to know. We will build on this. Lastly, and Congresswoman Maloney named it, there were countless outside transparency groups that spanned from the farthest left of our country's politics to the farthest right of our politics, all of whom wanted more open access to their government. Today, we are achieving it. We still will have a government that knows far more about us than we know about our government; but today, we are opening the possibility that, in a timely fashion, more often more people who have a vested interest in knowing something that the government has done or is doing will have the ability to get that information. I thank Congressman Meadows for making this bill possible today. His leadership has been critical, and his friendship has been critical all along the way.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, these faces are not household names, faces; no one knows who these unknown Americans are. And that is because they have been held in Iran for so long. September 18, 2015, and also detained in 2015. Of course they were not detained the 444 days that Iran, a totalitarian dictatorship and theocracy, held 52 American diplomats, and the world is not watching the same as they did then. That is how this President could make a deal with Iran and not include these victims of this dictatorship. So today, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to remind people that in the years, the decades, since I was a young lieutenant in 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini blamed students for somehow doing something--not his government--and continued to blame them and blames them in many ways until today, the Iranian Government, today, would still hold our Embassy hostage. It still is a shell waiting for a return, a return that I fear this President wants to do by executive order. He has already thrown aside so much of what was working to stop this regime from spreading terrorism. Mr. Speaker, as we speak today, these people are held hostage, and the American people are being held hostage by a President who chooses to use the pen and the phone over the democratic means at his side. Mr. Speaker, I will continue coming to the floor and pointing out that Iran continues to be a dictatorship spreading violence throughout the region; continues to fund Hamas and Hezbollah; continues to, in fact, destabilize countries in the region, and now does so with 140 billion more dollars. Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that we stand firm in this House that this cannot be tolerated; that, ultimately, this body must stand and do what it is obligated to do, which is, in fact, to demand freedom for Americans held involuntarily and illegally around the world, and particularly in Iran. President Obama's Supreme Court Nomination

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will close by commenting on the Democratic Whip's statements. He is demanding that the Senate do its job. At a time in which the political season is well underway and politicians are campaigning around America for President, at a time in which two sides have two different visions of the Constitution--one is that the original intent of the Constitution be adhered to and changed only by the will of the people, as it has been 27 times; or, that it be simply cast aside the way the current nominee for the Supreme Court would do with the Second Amendment and others--I respect the minority leader's right to an opinion; but, of course, we all, on this floor, have a right to be wrong from time to time. Mr. Speaker, he clearly was when he went on for more than 10 minutes, telling us that we have to confirm a Supreme Court Justice in the middle of a political season. I wish he had joined me in saying that this President should not make agreements that circumvent the Constitution, that circumvent this body and leave Americans stranded abroad.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Frederick John Pluckhahn. Jack was a prominent and instrumental leader in the consumer electronics industry and he will be dearly missed by his many colleagues and friends across the nation. As a young man, Jack earned a Bachelor's of Science at the University of Wisconsin--Madison and served in the United States Navy from 1955 to 1957. After beginning his entrepreneurial career in Minneapolis, Minnesota as a buyer for Dayton's Department Store, he relocated with his family in 1968 to New Jersey to join Matsushita Electric Industrial Corporation, known today as Panasonic Corporation. During his tenure at Panasonic, he served as Vice President of the Southern Group of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (MECA) from 1972 to 1982 before becoming President of MECA's Quasar Division in Chicago, Illinois. From 1989 to 1994, as Vice President of MECA, he was responsible for operations and headquarters functions at the company. From 1986 to 1994, Jack volunteered for several leadership positions with the Consumer Electronics Group, known today as the Consumer Technology Association. As Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Video Chair, he played a key role in the nation's switch to digital and high-definition television, and in the words of CTA President Gary Shapiro, ``Television as we know it today . . . would not be possible without the contributions of Jack and his colleagues.'' In addition to his accomplishments in the consumer electronics industry, Jack was actively involved in his community, both as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for the Planning Commission in Morgan County, Georgia and as the County's Habitat for Humanity Executive Director from 1996 to 2008. It was his honor to carry the Olympic Torch for the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996. Jack passed away on February 11, 2016 from Parkinson's disease and is survived by Nancy, his wife of fifty-six years, and their children: Susan and Felix Vizurraga, Jill and Mat Morgan, Scott Pluckhahn and Keith Crosby, Thomas Pluckhahn and Becky Zarger, and Michael Pluckhahn. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, of the several postal namings that we will be voting on today, in my humble opinion, none can recognize a more significant contribution than this one. Many will pay honor to those who have served their country, particularly those in the military. But this post office, located at the Mainside of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, is being named not on behalf of one or two or five, but for the many, many, many marines who have deployed from Camp Pendleton since 1942. With over 42,000 marines and sailors currently stationed there and with its history in World War II, the Medal of Honor recipients whose names will appear on the plaque at what is now a numbered Mainside post office will remind all of those who come to that base and come to that facility that people like Colonel William Barber, who received the Medal of Honor for actions at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, and over 250 Medal of Honor recipients, more than any other base I know of in the world--it will represent those who gave their last measure, those who did for their colleagues and their comrades far more than any of us could imagine ever finding the courage to do. I hope the naming of this will finally allow us to name what we do not have enough roads for, we do not have enough signs for, we do not have enough post offices for, and that is to recognize that the base at Camp Pendleton and its post office, as a result of the authority of this committee, has put out corpsmen and marines for decades who have served our country in a way that no other base could take such pride in. I hope that all who hear this will recognize that we have named many post offices after an individual, but never after an act. And the act of heroism that earns the Medal of Honor is unparalleled to any American. I thank the chairman for his assistance, and I thank the ranking member for bringing this bill in a timely fashion.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Lieutenant Colonel Marvin R. ``Bud'' Kilton and his service to our nation in the United States Air Force. He passed away on February 9, 2016 at the age of 90. Born in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Lt. Col. Kilton joined the Air Force in 1943 and trained to become a B24 and B25 pilot in the final years of World War II. At the conclusion of the war, he became an active reservist and earned a Bachelor's of Science and a Master's Degree at the University of Wisconsin. Lt. Col. Kilton rejoined active service from 1950 to 1970 where he served at Air Force Bases across the Western Hemisphere in Biloxi, Mississippi; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada; and Bogota, Colombia. Throughout his twenty-six year military career, he accrued over 2000 total hours of flight time as a pilot and also headed the ROTC program at The Ohio State University for three years. He was Honorably Discharged with a total of six medals and commendations, including the Air Force Commendation Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, the Air Force Reserves Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award with four Oak Leaf Clusters, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award. After his service, Lt. Col. Kilton remained active in his community as the Director of Education for the Credit Union National Association and worked as a tax preparer in Madison, Wisconsin and Orange County, California. He was married for 64 years to the late Carol M. Hansen and is survived by his two daughters, Megan Minarik and Stacey (Kilton) Winker, and his two grandchildren, Kelsey Lee Minarik and Ryan Andrew Minarik. I thank Lt. Col. Kilton for his courage and dedication to the United States and my thoughts are with his family in this difficult time.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, my amendment quite simply makes this bill better. Since 2011, almost 5 years, virtually every single public company has reported financial statements to the SEC by electronic, searchable, readable data format, often called XBRL. This searchable data allows the investor community to look through data in a way they never could under paper, and its accuracy is as good or as bad as the source material that goes onto that paper. Now, both the author of the bill and myself agree on one thing: printing paper and sending electronic format is outdated. There is no question at all that the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is long overdue to convert to an all-electronic filing. As a matter of fact, for most of the people that will be listening and watching today, they are already electronically filing their income tax and then printing out a paper copy to stick in a drawer. The idea that a public company who spends two, three, four or more millions of dollars in compliance every year would file paper, and then that paper would be electronically scanned, sent to India, converted to data, and then analyzed by the investment community is truly about the most backwards way one could imagine doing it. What my amendment to Mr. Hurt's bill that is enclosed in the larger bill says is, we understand that some small startup companies, even though they are going public, may have a difficult time transitioning, and the idea that they would be allowed to go optional, as Congressman Hurt's bill intends, is acceptable if, in fact, it is for a short period of time, as the eventual transition to all-electronic filing goes forward. The many thousands of companies who have been successfully filing electronically and who have software that makes it simply a push of a button, coming off of this would, in fact, be a giant step backwards. As we go toward all-electronic filing and the elimination of the absurdity of paper as the standard of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we only ask that this provision be one that is focused on new companies for a short period of time. That is the reason the amendment takes the 5-year exemption to all companies to be simply an exemption to new IPOs; in other words, companies that may not at the time of their public offering already have the software in place to do this filing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a senior member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I have been on the board of a public company, of multiple public companies. I have taken a company public, as have many of the supporters of this amendment. I know the cost of taking a company public. It is in the millions. It is not in the thousands. I also know that whether it is Bernie Madoff or Enron or WorldCom or a host of much smaller companies that have deceived the public, the Securities and Exchange Commission has an obligation to continuously improve the material available to the financial community and to make sure that it is equally searchable and equally accessible to the large and small investor. That is the reason that I strongly believe that elimination of paper, not covered in this bill, should not be replaced by elimination in any way of the reporting under the digital reporting requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. I would urge Members that this is narrowly focused, much more narrow than the bill itself. It recognizes that if somebody wants to go public and not do this, they would have the ability to do so. As Mrs. Maloney said, for 60 percent of the reporting companies to be exempted out would begin to rot away the underpinnings of a 5-year-old program that has been successful. I would hope people would realize that it is not a necessary, a draconian backwards step to before 2011. In fact, from my information and from my experience, it is a de minimis cost to simply include a digital format that the world can look at and evaluate quicker and with greater accuracy. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the full committee, for bringing a combined bill that I generally approve of and hope that this amendment will make it a bill I can vote for. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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