Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listened intently to my colleague's opening remarks, and he seemed to try to justify the passage of the REINS Act, which I rise in opposition to, by the way, by saying that it has been the Obama administration's job-killing regulations that have put our economy in its position, which is one that is not good. Despite trying to convince the American people of that allegation, the American people are aware of the facts. They are aware of the fact that, 8 years ago, when President Obama came into office and under a Republican stewardship that used trickle-down economics as its model, this economy neared that of the Great Depression's. In fact, we call it the period of the Great Recession. This country almost went into a depression, and it went into a Great Recession because of George Bush's and the Republicans' policies of trickle-down economics, which Daddy Bush--George Herbert Walker Bush--once referred to as ``voodoo economics,'' and he was right about that. Let's look at where we were then and look at where we are now and ask ourselves: Are we not better off now than we were then? There are not many voices that could say, No, we are not better off now than we were then, because they know, since then, there have been 81 straight months of positive private sector job growth. They know that over 15.6 million new jobs have been added to our economy by President Obama. They also know that 30 million more people have health insurance and access to the healthcare system now than they did back then. They know that regulations had to ensue from the passage of the Affordable Care Act in order to enable those 30 million people to have coverage now. That is why they want to introduce this legislation to cut regulations. They want to try to hurt the Affordable Care Act. They also know that regulations had to spring forth from the Dodd-Frank, Wall Street regulation, legislation that was passed in this body. They know that those regulations have protected the finances and the financial security of Americans who are doing far better now than they were 8 years ago when President Obama took office. The American people know that they are much better off now. They know that bankruptcies have gone down. They know that foreclosures have gone down. They know that they have better jobs. They know that things are better now than they were back then. You will remember and the American people will remember that on the very day of President Obama's first inauguration, Mitch McConnell and a cabal of Republicans met from both the House and Senate, crying in their beers at a Capitol Hill bar. They embarked on a strategy to-- what?--make sure that President Obama would be a first-term President. So they resolved to oppose everything that he proposed, and they certainly did. Despite unprecedented opposition from the Republicans' just saying ``no'' to everything, the American people know that they are in a better position today than they were at this time 8 years ago when coming into the Obama administration. The Republicans want to introduce legislation to do away with the rules and the regulations concerning the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank legislation, which has protected the financial security of Americans over the last 8 years. That is why they come forward with this so-called jobs bill. This regulatory reform bill called the REINS Act is not going to produce or create one single job. What it will do is cut measures to protect the health, safety, and well-being of Americans. This misguided legislation would amend the Congressional Review Act to require that both Houses of Congress pass and the President sign a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days before any major rule issued by an agency can take effect. In other words, this bill would subject new major rules to nullification by Congress through an unconstitutional legislative veto by one Chamber of Congress. Following Republican attempts earlier this week to gut ethics and oversight rules that are necessary to police corruption, it is telling that the REINS Act is the next bill that the House would consider in the 115th Congress. Americans should understand what the game plan is of the Republicans. They want the fox to guard the henhouse. That is why the very first act that they tried to get passed was reform of the House ethics regime. They wanted to neuter it, place it under the control of the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee, where it would then languish and die like a prune on a vine that was unwatered. That is the first thing they came up with, and the American people called them on it and wouldn't let them pass it. So they have postponed it. America needs to keep their eyes on this Congress to make sure that they don't follow through with that measure that would install the foxes over the henhouse. What they want to do is install the corporate foxes over America's henhouse with this REINS Act. The REINS Act is central to the Speaker's so-called Better Way agenda, which is really only a better way for rich, corporate elites to further insulate themselves from public accountability and is emblematic of the same tired and crony-capitalist proposals that have been kicked around by opponents of environmental and public health protections since the 1980s. In fact, in 1983, Chief Justice John Roberts, who was then a counsel to President Reagan, criticized a similar proposal as unwise because it would hobble agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules and would seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies. In addition to being an unmitigated disaster for public health and safety, proposals like the REINS Act will actually do major harm to regulatory reform attempts, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1981. Then a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Justice Scalia cautioned: ``Those in the Congress seem perversely unaware that the accursed `unelected officials' downtown are now their unelected officials, presumably seeking to move things in their desired direction; and that every curtailment of desirable agency discretion obstructs (principally) departure from Democrat-produced, pro- regulatory status quo.'' Now, it is not often that I quote Justice Scalia, but, ironically, I do so today. The REINS Act also imposes deadlines for the enactment of a joint resolution approving a major rule that could charitably be referred to as Byzantine. So as not to use too lofty language, I will just declare that this thing is like throwing a monkey wrench in a well-oiled machine. Under new section 802, the House may only consider a major rule on the second or fourth Thursday of each month. In 2014, for example, there were only 13 such days on the legislative calendar. I think on the legislative calendar for 2017, there are only about 13, maybe 14 or 15, such days where we could consider these major rules on this legislative calendar. I would point out that there are approximately 80 such rules of importance that come through in a typical year. Furthermore, under new section 801, Congress may only consider such resolutions within 70 legislative days of receiving a major rule. This creates a lot of red tape that threatens to end rulemaking as we know it, and that is the exact, precise intent of this Congress. Even if agencies reduce the number of major rules in contemplation of a bill's onerous requirements, Congress would still lack the expertise and policy justifications for refusing to adopt a major rule. As over 80 of the Nation's leading professors on environmental and administrative law noted in a letter in opposition to a substantively identical version of this bill, without this expertise, any ``disapproval is therefore more likely to reflect the political power of special interests, a potential that would be magnified in light of the fast-track process.'' Lastly, by flipping the process of agency rulemaking so that Congress can simply void implementation by not acting on a major rule, the REINS Act likely violates the presentment and bicameralism requirements of Article I of the Constitution. It is my pleasure to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas cites Article I giving the legislative branch authority to make the laws, and no one can argue with that. However, I would point out that Article II, section 3 imposes upon the President, the executive, the obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and so rulemaking comes up under that authority, that constitutional authority. So what we have is a move by the legislative branch to intrude upon and to indeed regulate. And certainly we have that power to do so. But is it wise? Is it prudent? Or does it simply positively impact our campaign contributors, the people who put money into our campaigns? Is that the sole reason why we are doing this? We need to give care and thought into what we are doing here in Congress in this House of Representatives even though one party has all of the power now. They have the majority in the House, they have the majority in the Senate, and they have an incoming President. It doesn't mean they should go off the rails with a philosophy that is not in keeping with where the American people are. I would point out to them that there is no mandate that they have, even though they do have control of the legislative branch and the executive branch of government and they have held up, what some say actually stolen an appointment for the U.S. Supreme Court that President Obama was placed in a position to make last February upon the untimely demise of Justice Scalia. So since February, the U.S. Supreme Court has had to suffer through politics being played by the legislative branch in not confirming a presidential appointee, and now they have the opportunity to make that appointment under these conditions. Even though they have played loose and fancy with the protections of the Constitution and with the well-being of the American people and indeed our Republic by playing these political games, I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop and think about what they are doing and the ramifications of it. Even though you want to get at the EPA to make it easier for oil companies to pollute our environment without regulations to prevent it from happening, is that good for our Nation? Is it good for our children? Is it good for our elderly? How does it leave us with regard to asthma rates which have continued to skyrocket in this country? Do you want to gut the Dodd- Frank Wall Street reform to put us back in the situation where people are losing their homes and banks are being bailed out because they have become too fat to fail? Do we want to put ourselves back in that position again? Well, if we do then we will pass regulations like this one, the so-called REINS Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, which establishes an idiosyncratic process establishing an automatic sunset of public health and safety protections. It requires that agencies conduct an annual review of current rules to designate 10 percent of its existing rules to be eliminated within 10 years of the bill's enactment unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval for eligible bills. Now, I understand to the listening public that sounds kind of complicated, but the bottom line is they want to do away--my friends on the other side of the aisle--with net neutrality, which is something that a Federal agency requires. So if you want the Internet, which we all built and paid for through the Federal Government through our taxes and then we turned it over to the private sector, but we still have a public interest in the net being neutral so that all traffic flows equally over the Web without some being slower than others according to how much you can afford to pay. That is not fair. So this King amendment is a part of a regulatory scheme proposed by this legislation, the REINS Act, which is going to hurt Americans. It is going to hurt the health, safety, and well-being of the people when you are not able to have clean water, clean food, edible food, safe products, clean air, and clean water. These are the things that the REINS Act gets at. It doesn't want Americans to be healthy. It doesn't want the Internet to be neutral. Why? Because corporate America and Wall Street put people in office to do their bidding. That is what the REINS Act is all about. This King amendment will make it worse. Under current law, Federal agencies already conduct an extensive retrospective review process of existing rules and have already saved taxpayers billions of dollars in cost savings. Since 2011, the Obama administration has made a durable commitment to ensuring retrospective review of existing regulatory protections. Under Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, the administration has required that of agencies. According to Howard Shelanski, the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under the Obama administration, the Obama administration's retrospective review initiative has achieved an estimated $37 billion in cost savings, reduced paperwork, and other benefits for Americans over the past 5 years. Furthermore, as the Obama administration has stated in the context of a veto threat of a similarly draconian antiregulatory proposal in a previous Congress, ``It is important that retrospective review efforts not unnecessarily constrain an agency's ability to provide a timely response to critical public health or safety issues, or constrain its ability to implement new statutory provisions.'' That is what the King amendment would do. In fact, because agencies are already committed to a thorough review process to identify and eliminate regulatory burdens, it may be impossible for agencies to make additional cuts without severely affecting public health and safety. Lastly, while the majority has repeatedly noted that H.R. 26 is forward-looking legislation, this amendment would make the bill apply retroactively to protections and safeguards that exist at the bill's date of enactment, a bald attempt to gut protections adopted by the Obama administration, including net neutrality. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 427--regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015--rep. young, r-in, and 171 cosponsors The Administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective, and tailored to further statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015, which would impose an unprecedented requirement that a joint resolution of approval be enacted by the Congress before any major rule of an Executive Branch agency could have force or effect. This radical departure from the longstanding separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches would delay and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion. There is no justification for such an unprecedented requirement. When a Federal agency promulgates a major rule, it must already adhere to the particular requirements of the statute that it is implementing and to the constraints imposed by other Federal statutes and the Constitution. Indeed, in many cases, the Congress has mandated that the agency issue the particular rule. The agency must also comply with the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). When an agency issues a major rule, it must perform analyses of benefits and costs, analyses that are typically required by one or more statutes (such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act) as well as by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. In addition, this Administration has already taken numerous steps to reduce regulatory costs and to ensure that all major regulations are designed to maximize net benefits to society. Executive Order 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis, public participation, harmonization of rulemaking across agencies, flexible regulatory approaches, and a regulatory retrospective review. In addition, Executive Order 13610 further institutionalizes retrospective review by requiring agencies to report regularly on the ways in which they are identifying and reducing the burden of existing regulations. Finally, agency rules are subject to the jurisdiction of Federal courts. Moreover, for the past 19 years, the Congress itself has had the opportunity, under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, to review on an individual basis the rules--both major and non-major--that Federal agencies have issued. By replacing this well-established framework with a blanket requirement of Congressional approval, H.R. 427 would throw all major regulations into a months-long limbo, fostering uncertainty and impeding business investment that is vital to economic growth. Maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility between the two branches is essential to ensuring that the Nation's regulatory system effectively protects public health, welfare, safety, and our environment, while also promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. If the President were presented with H.R. 427, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we can't blame a $20 trillion deficit or debt on nameless, faceless bureaucrats. We can blame a lot of that debt on the George Bush administration and the legislators who voted for tax cuts for the wealthy that were not paid for and funded two wars that were not paid for. That is what we can blame that $20 trillion debt on. Again, if you are in favor of net neutrality, you should oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the Goodlatte amendment clarifies that a major rule is any rule with an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more adjusted for inflation. This amendment revises the bill's definition for a major rule to include any rule with an annual cost of $100 million or more as determined by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, also known as OIRA. I oppose this amendment because it focuses only on the cost of regulatory protections while completely overlooking the monetary benefits of these critical rules. It also strips OIRA's ability to consider the benefits of a rule in connection with a rule's cost. I don't understand the logic of that. In 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized cost-only regulatory estimates as misleading, unbalanced, and having serious methodological problems. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, likewise observed in 2015 that ignoring the benefits of regulation is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money. That doesn't make any sense to me. Even Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has stated that ``many of these rules we need, they're important for the economy, and we support them,'' conceding that the benefits of regulatory protections must be considered hand in hand with their costs. Indeed, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Office of Management and Budget regularly has reported to Congress that the benefits of regulations far exceed their costs. During the three hearings on the REINS Act in previous Congresses, we heard from three distinguished witnesses that the benefits of regulation routinely outweigh their costs, according to cost-benefit analysis done by the Office of Management and Budget under administrations of both parties. For example, in the 112th Congress, Sally Katzen, a former administrator of the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, testified that ``the numbers are striking: according to OMB, the benefits from the regulations issued during the ten-year period''-- from fiscal year 1999 through 2009--``ranged from $128 billion to $616 billion.'' I will repeat. Benefits from regulations ranged from $128 billion to $616 billion. ``Therefore, even if one uses OMB's highest estimate of costs and its lowest estimate of benefits, the regulations issued over the past ten years have produced net benefits of $73 billion to our society.'' Those are the words of Sally Katzen. That 10-year timeframe encompasses the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. We also heard in the 112th Congress from David Goldston, a former Republican House committee chief of staff, who testified that ``administrations under both parties have reviewed the aggregate impact of regulations and found their benefits to have exceeded their costs (and not all benefits are quantifiable).'' Their testimony is bolstered by the Office of Management and Budget's 2016 Draft Report to Congress, which notes that estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB over the past decade estimated annual benefits of regulatory protections are between $269 billion and $872 billion, while regulatory costs are between $74 billion and $110 billion. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, once again, because it focuses only on the cost of regulatory protections while completely overlooking the monetary benefits of these critical rules, and for that reason I oppose my colleague's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 26, which would exempt from the bill rules that improve the employment retention and wages of workforce participants, especially those with significant barriers to employment. Since one of the justifications, or the main justification, for this underlying legislation is to promote job growth from corporate titans at the expense, by the way, of health and safety of Americans, at least, we could exempt from the bill rules that improve the employment, retention, and wages of workforce participants, especially those with significant barriers to employment. When President Obama took office in 2009, he inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This economic quagmire was created by misguided Republican policies that put profits ahead of people, resulting in reckless decisions on Wall Street that cost millions of Americans their homes and jobs. In other words, the Great Recession was caused by the collapse of the financial markets due to an unreliability and instability of the predatory lending market, which had taken hold. There was so much paper out there on Wall Street that was worthless because it was based on these homes that people couldn't pay the notes for, and all of that was caused by deregulation, lack of regulation. Now we have a period with Dodd-Frank coming into play and the financial markets improving, the protection and economic security of American families increasing, being strengthened. Now, at the beginning of this Congress, we get legislation to gut the Dodd-Frank regulation and other regulations that would protect people from excesses of the corporate community. I am just asking, in this amendment, that we don't let it apply in the case of situations where the bill improves employment retention or wages or workforce participants, especially those with barriers to employment. So, according to leading economic indicators, private-sector businesses have created more than 15.6 million new jobs. The unemployment rate has dropped to well below 5 percent to the lowest point in nearly a decade, and incomes are rising faster, while the poverty rate has dropped to the lowest point since 1968. This has all occurred during an administration that is proenvironment, proclean energy, and proworkplace safety. In fact, during this time, our Nation has doubled our production of clean energy and reduced our carbon emissions faster than any other advanced nation. And the price of gas is down to roughly $2 a barrel, despite all of these cumbersome and oppressive regulations by the Obama administration that the other side complains about. Notwithstanding this progress that has been made, there is still much work to be done for the millions of Americans who remain out of work, underemployed, or have not seen significant wage growth postrecession. Congress should be working tirelessly across party lines to find solutions to persistent unemployment and stagnant wages, such as a public investment agenda that will increase productivity and domestic output while turning the page on our historic underinvestment in our Nation's roads, bridges, and educational institutions. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, this bill, the REINS Act, is not a jobs bill. It is a legislative hacksaw to the critical public health and safety protections that ensure our Nation's air is clean, our water is pure, and our workplace vehicles, homes, and consumer products are safe. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the King amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 2.8 million civil servants out there. Americans who work for the Federal Government go to work every day. They work hard and play by the rules. They have a good, middle class job. Your jobs are at stake, Federal employees. There are those who say that we have too many Federal employees. Well, the number of Federal employees that we have now is at the same level as they were in 2004, which was when President Bush was in office. Basically we are at a 47-year low, as far as the number of Federal employees, since 2013. The Federal regulatory regime, which is just simply Federal workers-- Federal civil servants--is not out of control, but your jobs are going to be lost when these Republicans finish doing what they want to do to these regulations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on each side?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to see my friend, Mr. Trott, leaving the Judiciary Committee. We have appreciated his being there and we hate to see him go, but the gentleman is going on to bigger and better things. I would say to the gentleman that it is surprising to me that the Bloomberg Government reports show that of all of the job cut announcements made by industry during the year of 2016--and that was a year, by the way, which was not unlike previous years. Basically, the Obama administration has created about 1.9 million new private sector jobs per year. I am just startled by this statistic here for the year 2016 as far as the number of job cut announcements by reason. The reason given for government regulation being responsible for the job cut is 1,580. That is out of 1.9 million new jobs created during the entire 2016 year, 1,580 jobs lost due to government regulation. That's almost as many as were lost due to the listeria outbreak, legal trouble, or grain downturn. Government regulation, 1,580 jobs lost out of 1.9 million created. So this argument that we keep hearing from my friends on the other side of the aisle that there is a strangulation or a stranglehold on job creation by Obama's regulations, nothing could be more false than that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have just tallied up the number of jobs that would be created by passage of this legislation. I did that by multiplying by eight the figure of 1,580, which is the number of jobs lost due to government regulation in 2016. If I multiply that eight times, I come up with 12,640 jobs. That is how many jobs would be created by this legislation--a paucity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the passage of the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017, H.R. 21. Let's not get it twisted. This is a mundane area that we are in, administrative review processes and how we are going to deal with regulations coming out of Federal agencies. This is a mundane topic, but it has real world implications. The bottom line is this is not a jobs bill. The American people sent Congress here to work on jobs and to work on economic security for Americans, and the first item of business out of this brand-new Congress is to gut the House Office of Congressional Ethics. Now, why would they want to do that? It was because they liked the idea of the fox guarding the henhouse. They wanted to put themselves in control over the henhouse once again, and the American people called them on it, and so they had to withdraw it. So what do they do? Today they come back with not a jobs bill but a regulatory bill, an antiregulatory bill, something that protects the health, safety, welfare, and well-being of Americans--little ones, elderly, workers, people who are consumers. They want to gut regulations. Now, what regulations do they want to gut? They will tell you, by the way, that gutting regulations helps to enhance job creation, but nothing can be further from the truth when you consider that under the last 8 years of President Obama, where we have had regulatory regimes established under the Affordable Care Act and also Dodd-Frank, we have created 15.6 million new jobs over 81 straight months of private sector job growth. Unemployment is now approaching 4 percent, which is basically full employment. And wages are going up for Americans. And so despite the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, you have got Americans that are prospering. What do the Republicans want to do? They try to trick you into believing that they are going to create more jobs by removing regulations. What regulations do they want to do away with? It is the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. So they want to reward their campaign contributors, Wall Street fat cats, with this legislation that will enable them to create conditions that will be similar to the ones that President Obama inherited when he walked into the Presidency 8 years ago. And you can't fail to remember how bleak and bad the economy was. The economy was in the tank. President Obama brought it back. Dodd- Frank brought it back. And millions--20 million more Americans now have health insurance than they had back then. And the cost of premiums for working people who had insurance through their jobs, the rate of increase has gone to the lowest level over the last 50-plus years. That is real benefits. What the Republicans want to do, they have said they are going to repeal and replace ObamaCare. They don't have anything to replace it with. They just simply want to repeal it, and that is the regulation that they seek to get at with this bill, H.R. 21, Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017. This is an attempt to bring the standard of living that Americans have come to enjoy to a halt. It is going to impact negatively our ability to be secure in our personal finances. New data from the American Community Survey indicates that the number of uninsured Americans continues to decline every year. What happens when our rural hospitals close and when all the people from throughout the State have to converge on the emergency rooms of the urban hospitals, and it is uncompensated care? Who pays for it? You pay for it. Let's not get this legislation twisted.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. This is an attack on your ideals. I ask that my colleagues vote against this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I would submit that we, on this side, are always interested in making the rulemaking process more efficient, and this is an important bipartisan concern. The trouble is when you get bills that are half-baked and they are sprung on the minority and not even subjected to a full committee and the regular order that we would proceed through with legislation as important as this--it is sprung on us, and it ends up on the House floor as half- baked as it was when it was introduced--this is no way to go about reform. I would just ask that this amendment be accepted. There is no doubt that this legislation is not going to go anywhere during this session of Congress, in terms of being signed into law. My pledge is that we would work together in the future to draft legislation that improves the rulemaking process, and not shut it down or gum it up. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016 is yet another unfounded and reckless attempt to prevent the implementation of critical laws by the Republican majority. H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act to enable Congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a President's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent express authorization by Congress. According to my Republican colleagues, the Obama administration's regulatory agenda has eroded job growth and economic prosperity--far from it, however. Under President Obama's leadership, we have seen the longest consecutive streak of private job creation, the fastest growth of middle class income ever, and more high-quality and affordable health care for working Americans. Recently, the Census Bureau released new data indicating that in 2015 the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record, while the poverty rate fell at a faster rate than at any point since 1968. New data from the American Community Survey indicates that the number of uninsured Americans is declining in nearly every State. These metrics reflect a strong record of progress as Federal agencies implement laws like the Dodd-Frank Act and the Affordable Care Act. If anything, Mr. Chairman, we need new rules and better enforcement of existing law to ensure corporate accountability. In fact, it has only been months since the shocking revelations of Wells Fargo's years of illegal banking practices have come to light. This sweeping display of corporate deception and hubris smacks of the very culture and lack of internal controls that gave rise to the mortgage crisis, collapsing the economy and employment. Indeed, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has cautioned, this scandal ought to be a moment where people stop and note, remember how dangerous the system is when you don't have the proper protections in place. While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued its largest civil penalty ever--$100 million--in response to this scandal, this was a drop in the bucket compared to the bank's $20 billion in profits last year or its chief executive's $200 million stock compensation deal. What is more, not only did the bank deceive its own customers, Wells Fargo buried the scandal through forced arbitration clauses that shielded itself from liability and public accountability. This is simply unacceptable and drives home the point that there is still much work to be done to ensure fairness and accountability in the financial system, regardless of how many days may be left in the President's term. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would exempt rules issued by an agency more than 3 years prior to their submission to Congress. This amendment is designed to confront the fundamentally flawed premise of H.R. 5982, namely, that rules submitted to Congress during the final 60 legislative days of a session are somehow less valid than rules submitted prior to that period. To set the record straight, this bill does not apply to rules submitted during the lameduck period following an election. Notwithstanding the bill's colorful title, H.R. 5982 applies to every rule submitted to Congress within the final 60 legislative days of a session. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has clarified, this would include rules submitted as early as May 2016. Eight months should be adequate time for Congress to consider the merits of economically significant rules, which often take years to finalize. Indeed, according to the nonpartisan, congressionally established Administrative Conference of the United States, the ACUS, many of these rules adopted between an election and the inauguration of a new President involve ``relatively routine matters not implicating new policy initiatives by incumbent administrations.'' Public Citizen similarly found in a report issued earlier this year that rules adopted during the final months of an administration take 3.6 years on average to finalize. And that is just rules that are submitted to Congress during the final 3 months of a President's term. Again, this bill applies to rules adopted during much of the final year of the President's term, dramatically undercutting the bill's stated purpose. So, despite the majority's claims that the bill applies to midnight rules, this legislation would allow Congress to bundle numerous rules finalized during the final year of a President's term into a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a solution to a nonexistent and undocumented problem. Alarmingly, once these rules have been invalidated through this process, the agency may not adopt a subsequent similar rule absent express authorization by Congress. I am also struck by the irony of the majority's stated concerns with a lack of transparency and public scrutiny in the policymaking process. This bill has not been subject to a single hearing. In fact, it was introduced less than a week prior to its markup in committee. This legislation is symptomatic of a Republican majority more interested in focusing on coming up with the next great bill title or acronym than actually solving issues or helping the American people. Perhaps the majority should follow its own advice and proceed with regular order on new and controversial legislation. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which is critical to ensuring that the rules that have already taken years to finalize to improve lives and protect people actually see the light of day. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In a letter, Richard Reece, Acuity's executive vice president, writes that current State laws are numerous, varied, and often changing, requiring that the company expend significant resources merely interpreting and satisfying States' requirements. He concludes that: Unified, clear rules and definitions for nonresident reporting and withholding obligations would undoubtedly improve compliance rates, and it would strike the correct balance between State sovereignty and ensuring that America's modern mobile workforce is not unduly encumbered. We should heed the calls of Acuity and numerous other businesses across the country by enacting H.R. 2315 into law. With over 175 cosponsors this Congress, it is clear that mobile workforce is an idea whose time has come. I thank my colleagues for their work on the bill, and, in particular, Congressman Bishop of Michigan for his leadership on this bill in the 114th Congress; also Chairman Goodlatte for allowing this bill to come to the floor. Congressman Bishop has carried the torch for our esteemed former colleague, the late Howard Coble, who fought alongside me in support of this bill when it passed out of the House by a voice vote in the 112th Congress. I also thank our staffs who have worked tirelessly to build support for this legislation along bipartisan lines. This bill is a testament to the good that can come from working across the aisle on bipartisan tax fairness reforms. I am optimistic that the passage of H.R. 2315 augers well for the passage of e-fairness legislation, which is critical to countless small businesses across the country this Congress. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to bring this bill up for a vote as soon as possible. This country's employees and businesses deserve quick action.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 3438, the Require Evaluation Before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2016, also known as the REVIEW Act, which would automatically stay so-called high-impact rules that a party challenges by filing suit in court. Now, this is a very arcane and esoteric subject that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will literally put you to sleep listening to their arguments about it. But make no mistake about it, this is a very important piece of legislation that would torpedo the good work of legislators who are trying to protect the health, safety, and well- being of the American people. Simply put, this bill is yet another reckless measure designed to delay the implementation of the most important rules protecting the health, safety, and financial well-being of everyday people. Passage of this bill will only benefit the pocketbooks of the large corporations in the top 1 percent while the American people will be left unprotected from corporate greed. Other than satisfying the insatiable thirst of the superwealthy for more and more and more profits to stuff into their already fat and overflowing pockets, this bill is completely unnecessary and is not in the best interest of the greater good. Under current law, both courts and the agency issuing a rule may stay the effective date of a final rule. While agencies have broad discretion in postponing the effective date of a rule, a court considers several factors in deciding whether to stay a rule, including whether the party is likely to succeed on the merits. In 2009, the Supreme Court, in Nken v. Holder, instructed courts to consider four factors when deciding whether to issue a stay: One, whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; two, whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; three, whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and, four, where the public interest lies. The REVIEW Act would discard this very flexible and practical test in favor of an inflexible and unyielding requirement that agencies automatically delay the effective date of any rule exceeding $1 billion in costs that is challenged in court regardless of whether the party challenging the rule has any likelihood of success on the merits, is actually harmed by the rule, or whether staying the rule would be contrary to the public interest. It is virtually guaranteed that every high-impact rule would be delayed through litigation challenges, regardless of whether the litigation is meritorious. Frivolous litigation would almost certainly create years of delays for these rules which, in many cases, have already taken years to promulgate. But the bill wouldn't just simply apply to lifesaving rules that exceed $1 billion in costs that keep our air clean and our children safe. Rather, it would likely apply to transfer rules which involve the transfer of funds for budgetary programs authorized by Congress, such as transfer rules involving the Medicare program or the Federal Pell Grant Program, as the Office of Management and Budget has clarified. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill because it is a dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem. Any party affected by a final agency action may challenge that action in court while agencies may also delay the effective date of rules on a discretionary basis. Professor William Funk, a leading administrative law expert, explains that existing law ``weeds out frivolous claims and takes account of both the cost of the rule and the benefits of the rule that would be avoided by granting the stay.'' Absent any evidence whatsoever that courts have inappropriately refused to grant stays, I am confident that existing law provides adequate protection. In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and make in order any of the amendments that you will hear hereafter.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. The majority argues that H.R. 3438 responds to cases where a court vacates a rule after it has already gone into effect. The majority argues that H.R. 3438 responds to the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA, where the Court remanded a clean air rule adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce power plants' emissions of hazardous air pollutants. As leading administrator and law professor William Funk has noted, the Court remanded the rule rather than vacating it altogether because the ``grounds upon which the Supreme Court found the rule invalid appear to be easily remedied.'' He further observes that delaying this rule would cost the U.S. economy $20- to $80 billion per year. Importantly, the industry and State challengers to the EPA's rule at issue in Michigan v. EPA did not seek judicial stay of the rule prior to the Court's remand. Perhaps that is because they knew it would fail and that they could not meet the judicial test requiring showings of irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits. These challengers are hardly in a good position to complain now about the rule being found unlawful in one respect but not unlawful with respect to every other issue raised by the challengers when they themselves even failed to ask the Court to stay the rule beforehand. Furthermore, notwithstanding the majority's misleading claims that this rule caused irreparable harm and cost billions of dollars to implement while only offering potential benefits in the millions of dollars, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is the same entity that would be charged with conducting cost estimates under the bill, states that annual benefits of the rule range between $30- and $90 billion, very much dwarfing its annual cost of $9.6 billion.