Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, here in Washington, it is often difficult to see the true breadth and effect of the nearly $2 trillion regulatory burden imposed by Federal regulations, but in my Pennsylvania district, you see these burdens in everyday life. Across the spectrum of businesses, the struggle with regulatory compliance is an ever-present drag on creating jobs, economic growth, and innovation. I hear the same stories from small, family-owned restaurants, to mechanics, shop owners, and even landscapers. Due to decades of regulation from Washington, they are forced to focus as much time or more on compliance instead of running their businesses. These are real costs in dollars that are lost to needless and, in many cases, outdated red tape. The SCRUB Act will start the process of unraveling years of convoluted, sometimes contradictory, regulations and eliminating the costs that come with them. It is a bill that will modernize our Code of Federal Regulations for the 21st Century by eliminating regulations from the last one. Just as important, it is a bill that will lessen the amount of money spent by our government in enforcing regulations that are no longer needed. I am proud to cosponsor this piece of legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Title II of the bill contains one of the bill's most important innovations, a CutGo process for the repeal of regulations Congress approves for repeal. This process is modeled on the CutGo process pioneered in Congress itself to control Federal spending. By allowing regulatory repeals to occur on a CutGo basis, the bill both stabilizes total Federal regulatory costs and avoids forcing all repeals to occur immediately. This creates the opportunity for regulatory agencies applying their expertise and working with the entities they regulate to administer a smoother process of regulatory repeal with ample opportunities to prioritize the order of repeals and cooperatively consider any needed replacement regulations. The CutGo process also avoids one of the major flaws of the regulatory lookback process applied under executive order by the Obama administration. Although the process has resulted in some cost reductions under individual regulations, the net result of the process has been an alarming increase in total costs imposed by all Federal regulations. That is a giant step backwards, and it is a result the SCRUB Act's CutGo provisions will emphatically prevent. I would like to say for the record, a report by the National Association of Manufacturers states that the total cost of Federal regulation in 2012 was $2.028 trillion. The annual cost burden for an average U.S. firm is $233,000, or 21 percent of the average payroll. With that kind of number, no wonder we have the problems that we have. Listen to this figure: A small manufacturer with fewer than 50 employees will pay an estimated close to $35,000 per employee per year to comply with Federal regulations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment strikes the bill's title providing for judicial review of agency compliance with requirements for repeal of existing rules and publication of plans for decennial review of newly promulgated rules. These provisions must be retained, not stricken. They are critical to ensure that recalcitrant agencies abide by Congress' approvals of rules for repeal and actually do plan for effective, decennial cost-reduction reviews for newly promulgated regulations. We know that, without provision for judicial review, retrospective review of agency regulations can lead to nothing but increases in the overall cost of regulation. Just look at the results of the Obama administration's retrospective review under Executive Order 13563, which precluded judicial review. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their work and express my appreciation for the opportunity to serve as a conferee. There are several significant items in this bill that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Chairman Goodlatte and I were also deeply involved in another part of this important bill: efforts to enact meaningful and effective permit streamlining reforms. Enacting legislation to streamline the Federal permitting process has been among my primary goals. The RAPID Act, my bill to improve and review permitting timelines, has passed this House on three occasions on a bipartisan basis. Our goal has been to fix the flaws in our Federal permitting process that too often doom projects, leaving millions of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity on a bureaucrat's desk. This year, we worked with our colleagues Senators Portman and McCaskill on this important project. The amendment we offered on the floor during House consideration of this measure represented a carefully crafted compromise that further achieves these goals. It was the product of a bipartisan cooperation, and I am proud that these provisions were included in the conference report we are considering today. This conference report is an example of the many ways that we can reach across the aisle to find solutions to problems facing us. Our priorities will make lasting reforms that are sure to improve our infrastructure and strengthen our economy. I am glad they will be made law through the enactment of this conference report. This 5-year bill establishes certainty, stability, confidence, and, most importantly, trust. I am a States' rights guy, and the less Federal Government in my life, the better. Congress has removed obstacles for the States, who know best what is needed for their infrastructure. We must continue to remove impediments for our States to move into the 21st century without job-crushing regulations. Please support this bill. This bill will improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Ariane Palmasani Conaboy. Dr. Conaboy is the 138th President of the Lackawanna County Medical Society and the youngest President in the Society's history. The Lackawanna County Medical Society is a professional association for physicians and physicians in training that promotes an environment which fosters excellence in medical care. Dr. Conaboy graduated in 2000 from Scranton Preparatory School and went on to graduate from The University of Scranton, where she majored in biochemistry and philosophy. In 2008, Dr. Conaboy earned her Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree from the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. She went on to complete her internship and residency at Scranton Temple Residency Program. Dr. Conaboy is certified in Internal Medicine and is currently employed by Physicians Health Alliance, a division of Commonwealth Health, and practices traditional inpatient and outpatient internal medicine. She serves on the Physicians Health Alliance Advisory Board, the Moses Taylor Hospital Medical Executive Committee, and was recently elected Treasurer of the Medical Staff at the hospital. Dr. Conaboy serves on the Moses Taylor Hospital Credentials Committee and is the physician lead for the finance and contract committee for NEPA Quality Health Alliance, where she also serves as a board member. She is also a member of The Commonwealth Medical College Volunteer Clinical Faculty. Dr. Conaboy is the daughter of Millie Palmasani and the late Michael Palmasani. She is married to an attorney, Kevin, and they have two children, Clare and Kevin. On behalf of all Pennsylvanians, I am pleased to recognize Dr. Ariane Conaboy for improving the quality of life for citizens through her leadership as the President of the Lackawanna County Medical Society.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Dr. Robert J. Beall for his service to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the indelible mark he has made in the CF community and in the world of health and medicine over the past several decades. Dr. Beall announced on October 1, 2015 that he is stepping down as Chief Executive Officer of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, a role he has held for more than 20 years. Under Dr. Beall's leadership, the CF Foundation has become known for its pioneering and successful approach to supporting biomedical research and developing lifesaving treatments for those with cystic fibrosis. When Dr. Beall joined the Foundation in 1980, the median predicted age of survival for a person with the disease was 18 years of age-- today it is more than 40 years. For the first time in history, over half of the people living with CF are above 18 years of age, and therefore cystic fibrosis is no longer a pediatric disease. As a proud parent of a wonderful adult daughter with cystic fibrosis, I am personally thankful for Dr. Beall's leadership in this community. His tireless efforts have led this Foundation and the cystic fibrosis research community to remarkable successes in the development of innovative new therapies and dramatic improvement in the quality of life for those with CF. Through his innovation and leadership, Dr. Beall put the cystic fibrosis community on the road to success, and I have no doubt that his dedication over the past two decades has drastically accelerated our search for a life altering cure for CF patients. I am honored to serve as Co-Chair of the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus alongside Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, and I look forward to continuing the legacy of Dr. Beall through our work the CF community as well as fellow leaders in Congress.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding. For two terms now, enacting legislation to streamline the Federal permitting process has been among my primary goals. Three times now, this House has passed the RAPID Act, a bill that I sponsored in both the 113th and 114th Congresses. Our goal has been to fix the flaws in our Federal permitting process that often doom worthy projects that could collectively create millions of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity. In just my home State of Pennsylvania, one 2011 study found that the stalled energy projects alone would produce an average of over 56,000 jobs a year and over $44 billion in economic output. The potential growth in the American economy is staggering. Worthy projects across the country should not die on the vine while awaiting Federal bureaucratic approval. This amendment achieves these goals, and I am pleased to offer it with the chairman. It builds upon the reforms already encompassed in several bills passed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and signed into law. Perhaps most importantly we have reached agreement on this amendment in a bipartisan fashion. It has been one of the honors of my time in Congress to reach not only across the aisle, but across Chambers, to work with Senator Portman and Senator McCaskill on these reforms and this amendment. I urge all my colleagues and Members to join us in supporting this important amendment that will put Americans to work and help stimulate economic growth.

Mr. MARINO

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

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 348.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of Chairman Goodlatte.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes numerous technical and other minor wording changes to the bill. Together, these revisions clarify that the bill does not authorize duplicative agency review proceedings, does not require duplicative project notification and initiation of agency review procedures, and does not allow permitting decisions to be challenged in court by parties who did not first present their arguments in the administrative proceedings that produced the challenged permit. The amendment constitutes an agreement reached between the Judiciary Committee and the other committee of jurisdiction, the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, by its terms, the amendment brands infeasible--and, thus, barred from further evaluation--project alternatives that do not appear at the outset of the review process to adequately address risks associated with flooding, wildfire, and climate change. With all due respect, that puts the cart before the horse. The bill is intended to allow the review of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible. It is entirely possible that, during the course of review, a technically and economically feasible alternative that appears initially to be inadequate to address these risks could, on further review, be found to be adequate or to be improved to be adequate. It might even ultimately be found to be the best alternative under review. Why should we prematurely end the evaluation of alternatives that could ultimately prove adequate with regard to these types of risks? This does not prevent the review process. What it does prevent is someone waiting to get in at the last moment, which has been 5 or 6 years later, to jam the system up in court, therefore crushing jobs and letting regulation run rampant. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, among those who suffer most unfairly from poor government decision-making are the communities the gentleman's amendment addresses. For example, growing research shows that the costs of new regulations often have regressive effects on those with lower incomes. When poor government decision-making occurs in the permit review process, similar unfair effects may occur. The gentleman's amendment guards against this by requiring agencies to identify and reveal the potential adverse effects of project alternatives on low-income communities and communities of color. Once identified and revealed, of course, any such effects may be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow agencies to escape the bill's streamlined permitting deadlines simply because an elected State or local official or a local tribal official asks for an extension. The amendment contains no requirement that a Federal agency find the compelling basis for an extension or even a significant basis or even any substantive basis at all. On the contrary, all that a recalcitrant Federal agency, a project opponent, or anyone else would need to defeat an efficient permitting decision is to find an elected State or local official or a local tribal official willing to put in an extension request for them. The potential for abuse of this proposed provision by those who only seek delay for delay's sake or who seek to kill worthy projects outright is obvious. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the American people desperately need new jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, America's labor force participation rate remains mired among historic lows. Almost 94 million Americans who could work are outside the workforce. That is more than the population of all but 12 of the world's countries and more than every other country in the Western Hemisphere, except for Brazil and Mexico. We face this historically low rate not because Americans don't want to work, but because so many Americans have despaired of any hope of finding a new full-time job and have abandoned the workforce. The RAPID Act offers strong help to reverse this tragedy, restore the hope, and produce millions of new jobs. We must pass the bill, not weaken it, to provide these new high-wage jobs. The gentlewoman's amendment would weaken the bill in one of the worst possible ways. It would remove the clear consequences in the bill for agencies that refuse to follow the bill's deadlines. That consequence is to deem permits approved if agencies refuse to approve or deny them within those deadlines. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides 4\1/2\ years for agencies to complete their environmental reviews for new permit applications and reasonable and additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit approvals or denials after that; 4\1/2\ years is more time than it took the United States to fight and win World War II. If agencies can't wrap up their environmental reviews in that much time and then meet the bill's remaining deadlines, there is something terribly wrong with the agencies. The prospect of facing a default approval at the end of the substantial time the bill grants is an eminently reasonable way to assure that agencies will conduct full reviews and wrap their work up in time to make up or down decisions on their own. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I want to just give a couple of examples of the timing factor that we are seeing that the agencies just are not executing properly. Cape Wind Project: For more than 12 years--12 years--they were waiting for permits to build an operation that would create jobs and renewable energy. 12 years. Orange County toll road in Orange County, California: There was a 12- year delay there as well. The project was extended tens of millions of dollars because of the delay there, and jobs were lost because of that. Charleston Harbor, Savannah Port dredging project: Again, there was a decade of delays in permitting because agencies are just sitting around, not taking the job responsibly. They never would survive in private industry if they operated under those conditions. So those are a few examples of the cost in dollars and cents and the jobs that are lost because of these agencies not performing their responsibilities. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, one of the linchpins of the RAPID Act is its set of provisions that: deem a permit approved if the permitting agency refuses to meet the bill's reasonable deadlines; and, prohibit a court from overturning a permit approval simply because the permit was deemed approved when deadlines expired before action was taken. If we do not include consequences like these in the bill, how will we ever ensure that recalcitrant, foot-dragging Federal agencies will achieve the bill's goal of streamlined permit decisions? The amendment, however, removes all consequences for agencies' foot- dragging so long as the projects at issue would either limit access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing or impact an endangered or threatened species. That is in the bill. The amendment's sponsor offers no sound reason to do this. The bill does not require projects with these kinds of impacts to be approved. It just requires that permitting decisions, up or down, be reached after, at most, 4\1/2\ years of environmental review. Surely that is enough time to review all kinds of projects, including those that limit access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing or impact endangered or threatened species. To make matters worse, the bill would allow agencies to drag their feet without consequences even if a project had a beneficial impact on an endangered or threatened species. Why should we allow delay for that? I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.