Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on May 16, 2017 due to travel delays. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YEA for rollcall vote 258.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on May 1, 2017 due to a family medical issue. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YEA for rollcall vote 237, YEA for rollcall vote 238, and YEA for rollcall vote 239.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on April 28, 2017, due to a family medical issue. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 235. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 236.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on April 27, 2017 due to a family medical issue. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 229. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 230. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 231. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 232. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 233. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 234.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on April 25, 2017 and April 26, 2017 due to a family medical issue. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 222. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 223. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 224. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 225. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 226. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 227. ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 228.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and my current new ranking member, Mr. Cicilline, for their work on this important legislation. I further thank my colleague across the aisle, Congressman Schneider from Illinois, for helping us manage this. This is a bipartisan bill that is better for having gone through the regular legislative order. It was a pleasure to work with such knowledgeable and professional colleagues. In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That legislation was intended to address, among other things, the potential failure of large financial institutions. While the Dodd-Frank Act created a regulatory process for such an event, the act states that the preferred method of resolution for a financial institution is through the bankruptcy process. However, the Dodd-Frank Act did not make any amendments to the Bankruptcy Code to account for the unique characteristics of a financial institution. The legislation before us today fills that void. The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is the product of years of study by industry, legal, and financial regulatory experts. It is also the result of bipartisan review over the course of four separate hearings before the Judiciary Committee. The legislation includes several provisions that improve the ability of a financial institution to be resolved through the bankruptcy process. It allows for a speedy transfer of a financial firm's assets to a newly formed company. That company would continue the firm's operations for the benefit of its customers, employees, and creditors, and ensure the financial stability of the marketplace. This quick transfer is overseen by and subject to the approval of an experienced bankruptcy judge, and includes due process protections for parties in interest. The bill also creates an explicit role in the bankruptcy process for the key financial regulators. In addition, there are provisions that facilitate the transfer of derivative and similarly structured contracts to the newly formed company. This will improve the ability of the company to continue the financial institution's operations. Finally, the legislation recognizes the factually and legally complicated questions presented by the resolution of a financial institution. To that end, the bill provides that specialized bankruptcy and appellate judges will be designated in advance to preside over these cases. The bankruptcy process has long been favored as the primary mechanism for dealing with distressed and failing companies. This is due to its impartial nature, adherence to established precedent, judicial oversight, and grounding in the principles of due process and the rule of law. We are here today as part of an effort to structure a bankruptcy process that is better equipped to deal with the specific issues raised by failing financial firms. I want to stress again the bipartisan support that went through this process--at the subcommittee level and at the full Committee on the Judiciary level chaired by Chairman Goodlatte, my colleague on the other side of the aisle who is helping us manage this and the individuals in this House who realized what had to be done to protect the law abiding citizens of this country from a financial disaster. As a sponsor of the bill, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes during the week of March 15, 2017 due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On March 15, 2017: YEA for rollcall vote 159 YEA for rollcall vote 160 YEA for rollcall vote 161 On March 16, 2017: YEA for rollcall vote 162 YEA for rollcall vote 163 YEA for rollcall vote 164 NAY for rollcall vote 165 NAY for rollcall vote 166 NAY for rollcall vote 167 YEA for rollcall vote 168 YEA for rollcall vote 169 On March 17, 2017: YEA for rollcall vote 170 YEA for rollcall vote 171 YEA for rollcall vote 172 I was unable to attend votes during the week of March 27, 2017 due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On March 27, 2017: YEA for rollcall vote 195 YEA for rollcall vote 196 March 28, 2017: YEA for rollcall vote 197 YEA for rollcall vote 198 YEA for rollcall vote 199 YEA for rollcall vote 200 YEA for rollcall vote 201 YEA for rollcall vote 202 On March 29, 2017: YEA for rollcall vote 203 YEA for rollcall vote 204 NAY for rollcall vote 205 YEA for rollcall vote 206 On March 30, 2017: NAY for rollcall vote 207 YEA for rollcall vote 208

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 560, my bill to reauthorize limited commercial vehicle traffic along Route 209 through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Tomorrow marks 16 months during which uncertainty has reigned over this 21-mile stretch of road running through my district. Over 30 years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania transferred Route 209, then a State road, to the National Park Service. As commercial vehicle traffic is banned on roads within our national parks, it would ultimately be restricted on this stretch of Route 209. But at that time, a 10-year exemption was made to support the local freight transport industry and because acceptable alternative routes were unavailable. After multiple extensions, the most recent commercial vehicle authorization expired at the end of September 2015. To address the problem, county and township officials from the surrounding areas met with the National Park Service and my staff to negotiate a new plan. They recognized a continuing need to allow some commercial vehicles access and settled on the carefully crafted language we are considering today. The work to produce this extension acknowledges the continued need of the employers, businesses, and homeowners in Pike and Monroe Counties. Unfortunately, although the House passed identical language in the 114th Congress and the Senate moved it to the floor, this important legislation failed to become law. The resulting uncertainty created hardship for families and businesses in the communities neighboring the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The lack of access to this stretch of road has cast a cloud on a wide range of local businesses from heating fuel and package delivery to plumbers and electricians. Homeowners cannot access the services they need and countless jobs are in jeopardy. This is a critical piece of legislation for my constituents. We must pass it today and urge the Senate to act just as quickly. I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Federal Lands Subcommittee Chairman McClintock, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support and work with my staff to bring this bill to the floor as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act. This bill represents a monumental opportunity for the American people. After 8 years of one new crushing regulatory burden after another, the time has come to finally free the American people and create a new future for our economy. In 2017, regulatory burdens are at record levels. One recent analysis by the American Action Forum puts the cumulative paperwork burden on the American people at 11.5 billion hours. How could any small business person or entrepreneur survive in the face of this monstrous web of regulation? The short answer is that they cannot. It is a fact seen across my district as I have talked to workers covering every industry or occupation imaginable. When I ask businessowners about their concerns, first and foremost, the greatest hardship they face is the burden of Federal regulation and red tape. Funds, which otherwise could be invested in new employees, training, or equipment, must be dedicated to the demands of faceless bureaucrats in D.C. This applies to plumbers as well as to farmers, manufacturers to home builders. The list of those affected is long and varied. The simple truth is that the Obama administration's one-size-fits-all regulatory agenda has been a disaster for the American Dream, and we have seen over the past several months how disconnected it was from the wants and needs of Americans across the country. In Congress, however, we have heard their pleas and have taken action in the early days of the 115th Congress. H.R. 5 is the third regulatory reform bill we have considered in 2 weeks. It represents our brightest opportunity to unleash innovation and investment so that American businesses, big and small, can create new futures. I am also grateful that H.R. 5 includes my bill, the REVIEW Act. The REVIEW Act was featured as part of Speaker Ryan's A Better Way agenda and passed the House on a bipartisan basis last fall. It represents a simple premise: regulations should be narrowly tailored, and massive regulations deserve full and thorough scrutiny. The REVIEW Act would mandate a stay of any high-impact, billion- dollar regulation while judicial review is underway. Historically, billion-dollar rules have been few and far between. In fact, only 26 have been put in place since 2006; but, in recent years, their frequency has grown along with the unprecedented reach of the regulatory state. In the past 8 years, an average of three per year have been put in place. Their significance, however, lies in their impact on our country. These regulations are massive and have the potential to fundamentally and irreversibly change entire industries. If, later, judicial review finds the agency's reasoning to be legally unsound or contrary to the intent of Congress, the compliance costs incurred--often meaning jobs that were lost--cannot be undone. The REVIEW Act provides an important check on regulatory largesse and is an important piece of this bill. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. It is time for us all to take our country and the economy in the right direction. The Regulatory Accountability Act provides the reforms that are necessary to get us there. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the core judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. The resulting legislation, rather than restore an adequate framework of checks and balances against agency overreach and abuse, would perpetrate and perpetuate features among the worst of our current, runaway regulatory system. We cannot complete true regulatory reform without restoring to the judicial branch the vigorous powers of judicial review the amendment would strike. In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's critical rulemaking reforms all rules to reduce the incidence of cancer, premature mortality, asthma attacks, and respiratory diseases in children and seniors. All of us support the reduction of morbidity and mortality among children and seniors. Rules to advance these goals, done properly, contribute substantially to our Nation's health and well-being, but the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. It simply assures the agencies issuing these types of rules--and all agency rulemaking in general--will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less costly regulation and guidance when necessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I believe in the Constitution just like everyone else does, and primarily we, as congressmen and congresswomen, have a responsibility to make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats who have no experience in a lot of the areas where they are making these laws. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Like the previous amendment, the gentleman's amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and core judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. Faced with a runaway administrative state, we must not gut the bill's crucial reinforcements of judicial checks and balances against agency overreach and abuse. For this reason alone, the amendment should be rejected. In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's long-needed rulemaking reforms numerous types of food safety regulations. All of us support food safety. But the bill does nothing to frustrate the protection of food safety. In fact, it clearly calls upon regulatory agencies to achieve their statutory objectives in this and all areas. Beyond that, it simply ensures that agency rulemaking will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulations and produce smarter, less costly regulation and guidance when necessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my friend and NATO member. We have traveled together. A lot of the delay now is because of the agencies and how long they take to make decisions. With the premise behind our bills combined, agencies come up with an idea that they think will improve the quality of life, and that is what they should be doing. But then they immediately send it to us in the House, in Congress, and then we make the determination as to whether it is good law or it is bad law and apply it that way. We certainly have the time in the House, and I am sure the Senate has the time, too, to address these matters quickly and not delay it as long as the agency has been delaying making rules. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARINO. This amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review provisions of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It, too, should be rejected for those reasons. In addition, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemakings reforms numerous types of rule related to employment and wages. But once again, the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. On the contrary, it would produce better rules, rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for job creation and higher wages. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I simply would add that I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. As far as the jobs increase, or lack thereof, that my colleague speaks of, we have had the slowest growth rate in jobs in the history of this country. There are millions of people that are unemployed that are not seeking unemployment benefits, and they are not taken into consideration in the unemployment rate because it is much higher than it is; and the mean family income is at a low as far back as 14 years ago.

Mr. MARINO. Well, first of all, I would certainly enjoy working on job growth with the gentlewoman. We have worked on issues in the past. But the gentlewoman forgets about the technology that has created jobs. People have to write those programs. People have to build that hardware. They have to come up with very intense, very intricate ways to make the machinery, continue updating the software. My daughter is a software major in college, and the jobs there are abundantly available. So the jobs are there, but what I am hearing from people in my district and across the country is the regulations that have been imposed, not only by this administration but other administrations as well, are crushing particularly our small businesses. So if we can step back and eliminate these job-crushing regulations and take into consideration the economics involved, we are going to create more jobs, we are going to protect people, and we are going to protect the health of people. 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, like other carve-out amendments just offered, this amendment would strike from the bill the Separation of Powers Restoration Act and the essential judicial review protections of the Regulatory Accountability Act. It should be rejected. We should not be settling for weak judicial review that produces rubber stamps of agency action. We should be voting for the strong judicial review reform in the bill that prevents judicial rubber stamps. Beyond that, the bill would exclude from title I's rulemaking reforms children's toys and product safety rules. But again, the bill does nothing to prevent good rules in these areas. It will produce better rules, rules that are smarter and less costly, freeing resources for job creation and higher wages. Smarter rules are precisely what we need to protect children's health and safety, and more jobs and higher wages are what are needed to help families provide for their children. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the gentleman does not have the market cornered on worrying about the safety of our children. I think anybody in this room who has children has just as much concern for our children. What his amendment does is gut--it guts--regulations, and what our amendments do--and the way we should be handling these as Congress making any laws--will improve the quality of life and improve the protections. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.